path: root/77706-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77706 ***




                        THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE
                               1536–1537

                                  AND

                         THE EXETER CONSPIRACY
                                  1538


                             IN TWO VOLUMES
                                 VOL. I


                       CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

                          C. F. CLAY, MANAGER

                      =London=: FETTER LANE, E.C.
                    =Edinburgh=: 100 PRINCES STREET

[Illustration: Black-and-white woodcut colophon showing a heraldic
shield divided into four quarters with rampant lions, separated by
vertical panels of ermine spots; a small rectangular cartouche sits at
the center.]

                    =New York=: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
         =Bombay, Calcutta and Madras=: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
                  =Toronto=: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.
                 =Tokyo=: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA


                         _All rights reserved_




                        THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE
                               1536–1537
                                  AND
                         THE EXETER CONSPIRACY
                                  1538


                                   BY

                          MADELEINE HOPE DODDS

                     (Historical Tripos, Cambridge)

                                  AND

                               RUTH DODDS


                                VOLUME I


                               Cambridge:
                        at the University Press
                                  1915


                               Cambridge:
                       PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
                        AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS


                        PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN




                                  NOTE


The authors wish to express their most sincere gratitude to Miss Myra
Curtis, Professor A. F. Pollard, Mr I. J. Bell of the British Museum, Mr
H. R. Leighton, the Rev. J. Wilson, and Mr T. C. Hodgson for their kind
and valuable help in the preparation of this book.

The documents transcribed by the authors from the originals have been
given in the original spelling; in those which have been taken from
printed copies the spelling has been modernised.

The spelling of proper names of persons and places is that used in the
Index to the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII.

                                M. H. D.
                                 R. D.

  _July 1915._




                                CONTENTS


 CHAPTER                                                            PAGE
       I THE TURNING-POINT                                             1
      II PLOTS AND TOKENS                                             14
     III AFFINITY AND CONFEDERACY                                     28
      IV FACTS AND RUMOURS                                            63
       V THE RISING IN LINCOLNSHIRE                                   89
      VI THE FAILURE OF LINCOLNSHIRE                                 117
     VII THE INSURRECTION IN THE EAST RIDING                         141
    VIII THE PILGRIMS’ ADVANCE                                       168
      IX THE EXTENT OF THE INSURRECTION                              192
       X THE MUSTERS AT PONTEFRACT                                   227
      XI THE FIRST APPOINTMENT AT DONCASTER                          241
     XII THE FIRST WEEKS OF THE TRUCE                                273
    XIII THE COUNCIL AT YORK                                         308
     XIV THE COUNCIL AT PONTEFRACT                                   341


                                  MAPS

       I MAP OF ENGLAND SHOWING THE AREAS OF DISAFFECTION _To face p._ 1
      II CENTRAL LINCOLNSHIRE                               „       „
     III THE MAIN ROADS FROM LONDON TO THE NORTH            „       „
      IV THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE                       „       „
       V THE NORTHERN COUNTIES                              „       „




                       ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS


  PAGE

   =3= For influence on elections in the King’s favour, see “History,”
         October 1914, A. F. Hattersley, “The Real Position of the Duke
         of Norfolk in 1529–30.”

  =50= _For_ Thomas Monkton _read_ William Monketon.

  =79= The church plate of Hull. This method of securing the value of
         the church plate to the parish became fairly common in the
         later part of Henry VIII’s reign and during the reign of Edward
         VI. See Cox, “Churchwardens’ Accounts” (the Antiquary’s Books),
         pp. 133, 140–1.

  =91= For the commission to the clergy see Usher, “The Rise and Fall of
         the High Commission,” pp. 15–21.

 =116= Note E. The Sir Marmaduke Constable mentioned was Sir Robert’s
         brother, not his cousin.

 =123= Composition of the royal and the rebel forces. See Cox,
         “Churchwardens’ Accounts” (the Antiquary’s Books), pp. 325–7,
         for the parish soldier and the parish armour.

 =145= “Four docepyers.” Not “deceivers,” as suggested, but “douzepers,”
         great men. See New English Dictionary, and Lydgate, “Minor
         Poems” (Percy Society), p. 25:—

                “Where been of Fraunce all the dozepiere,
                Which in Gaule had the governaunce?”

 =149= The commons of Howdenshire attacked the house of Sir Marmaduke
         Tunstall, the Bishop of Durham’s nephew, but “some more
         sober than the residue” prevented any serious damage. See
         “Richmondshire Wills” (Surtees Society), p. 288 n.

 =184= Spoiling of Blytheman’s house. Colins was afterwards accused of
         being the chief plunderer. See L. and P. XII (1), 1264.

 =203= Oxneyfield is close to Darlington, where it seems that the
         townspeople rose and joined the rebels. The dean of the
         collegiate church commended one of his servants who “was the
         safeguard of my life, for else I had been betrapped by the
         commons ere I had known.” “Richmondshire Wills” (Surtees
         Society), p. 40 n. Cf. below, vol. II, p. 94.

 =208= The lordship of Middleham, which had belonged to Warwick the
         Kingmaker, on his death and attainder was granted by Edward IV
         to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards Richard III.
         (Gairdner, “Richard III,” p. 22.) It is well known that Richard
         married Warwick’s daughter Anne, co-heiress with her sister
         Isabel, and thus obtained a claim to the lordship not only by
         grant but also by inheritance. He and his wife were very
         popular at Middleham, which he called his home (ibid. pp. 28,
         259). When Richard in his turn was killed and attainted,
         Middleham escheated to the crown, but, Anne and her only child
         being dead, Warwick’s line was now represented by the Countess
         of Salisbury, the daughter of Anne’s sister Isabel, who was
         married to the Duke of Clarence. This expression of affection
         for the old line may therefore be a reference to the Poles.

 =209= “Merlione.” This is a misreading of “Meliore,” i.e. Mallory. The
         leader of the siege of Skipton was not a peasant with a feigned
         name, but a member of the family of Mallory.

 =213= _For_ Guisburn _read_ Guisborough, as on p. 71. It is not quite
         clear whether this incident happened at Guisburn or at
         Guisborough, but the latter seems the more probable.

 =233= “St Saviour’s of Newburgh.” The Priory of Newburgh was dedicated
         to the Virgin Mary, but the canons possessed “the girdle Sancti
         Salvatoris, which, as it was said, was good for those in child
         birth.” (L. and P. X, p. 137.) This relic was kept in St
         Saviour’s chapel at the Priory, where many pilgrims resorted.
         (L. and P. XII (2), 1231.) Probably Newburgh was called St
         Saviour’s after the most famous relic which it possessed,
         though it was really St Mary’s, just as Durham was called St
         Cuthbert’s, though it also was dedicated to the Virgin.

 =233= The message to Darcy from Shrewsbury’s camp. After the rebellion
         was over, when even the executions were almost at an end,
         Christopher Lassels, who was imprisoned in the Tower with Aske,
         was heard to say that Aske had told him “very sure tokens” by
         which the man who sent the warning might be recognised. This
         remark of Lassels was reported to Cromwell on 22 July 1537, but
         there is no record to show whether any arrest was made on
         Lassels’ information. (L. and P. XII (2), 321.)

 =237= _For_ “Sir Robert Bowes of Barnard Castle, and his sons” _read_
         “Robert Bowes and his brothers.”

 =266= The deposition against Hogon is printed in full, with
         illustrative notes by Furnivall, in “Ballads from MSS,” vol. I,
         pt 2, p. 310 (Ballad Society).

 =273= Hutton of Snape, probably a misreading of Snaith.

 =281= Pickering’s poem is printed by Furnivall in “Ballads from MSS,”
         vol. I, pt 2, p. 301 (Ballad Society). The editor states that
         it was published at Ripon in 1843, with a preface by J. R. W. I
         have not seen this last version, but it appears that neither
         Furnivall nor J. R. W. knew the author of the poem and its
         occasion, though they conjectured correctly that it referred to
         the Pilgrimage of Grace.

 =317= Henry VIII and the letter. Cf. Chapuys’ despatch of 3 November
         1533:—“On 25 October Henry had received Gardiner’s letter of
         the 17th, in which the bishop reported that Clement had refused
         to dispose of the matrimonial cause in the offhand manner that
         had been suggested. Henry became pale with anger and crushed
         Gardiner’s letter in his hand, exclaiming that he was betrayed,
         and that the King of France was not the true friend he had
         thought. He continued for some time to swear at the pope, and
         could not regain his equanimity.” (L. and P. VI, 1392.)

 =364= As late as 1596 it was maintained that the long bow was superior
         to firearms (Sir H. Knyvet, “Defence of the Realme,” 1596), but
         on the other hand as early as 1515 in a paper relating to
         Ireland it was stated that “the wild Irish and English rebels
         of all the land doth dread more and feareth the sudden shot of
         guns much more than the shot of arrows or any other shot of
         kind of weapon in this world.” (L. and P. II (1), 1366, printed
         in full Furnivall, “Ballads from MSS,” I, pt 1, p. 38 [Ballad
         Society].)

[Illustration:

  _Cambridge Univ. Press_
]

[Illustration:

  _Cambridge Univ. Press_
]

[Illustration:

  _Cambridge Univ. Press_
]

[Illustration:

  _Cambridge Univ. Press_
]

[Illustration:

  _Cambridge Univ. Press_
]




                               CHAPTER I
                           THE TURNING-POINT


In order to see the rebellion of 1536–7 in its true perspective it is
necessary to make a preliminary survey of the political position in
England before the first rising took place. At the end of July 1536
Henry VIII’s domestic relations were more settled than they had been for
the last ten years. The execution of Anne Boleyn on 19 May had been
followed by his marriage with Jane Seymour, who was indisputably his
lawful wife. The parliament which met on 8 June declared the two
children of the King’s former wives, Mary and Elizabeth, illegitimate,
and settled the succession to the crown upon the issue of the King’s
latest marriage: that failing, the King was empowered to determine his
heir himself either by will or by letters patent[1]. It was believed
that the object of this statute was to bring into the succession Henry’s
illegitimate son, Henry Duke of Richmond, who, however, died on 23
July[2]. After his death the situation with regard to the succession was
practically the same as it had been before the divorce of Katherine of
Arragon was proposed. The King was legally married, but it was
considered unlikely that Queen Jane would have a child, and unless he
acknowledged Mary, his heir by blood was the King of Scotland, whose
claim was exceedingly unpopular in England. If the King died it was
certain that Mary would be chosen by the nation as their queen, whether
she was legitimate or illegitimate. Moreover the power to offer her hand
in marriage might be useful to her father in foreign affairs.

A reconciliation between the King and his daughter was effected in
July[3], and the greater part of England would have rejoiced if the
matter had gone still further[4],—if Henry had acknowledged Mary,
beheaded Cromwell, burnt Latimer and the heretic bishops, and reconciled
himself with the Pope, who in return would certainly have been willing
to recognise Queen Jane and her possible children. Apart from all other
objections to this change of policy, however, there was one fatal
obstacle; the King could not afford it.

The characters of the Tudor Kings have made so deep an impression on
English history that it is easy to explain the events of their reigns by
attributing everything to their personal traits, but Henry’s need of
money was due to something that lay deeper than his own extravagance and
rapacity. The whole of Europe was undergoing great economic changes, in
consequence of the discovery of new trade routes and the importation of
gold and silver from America, which depreciated the value of the
coinage. Prices rose and the spending power of any fixed sum of money
diminished. As the royal revenues were almost entirely customary and
therefore fixed, it followed that the King was growing poorer while the
expenses of government were constantly increasing as the nation emerged
from feudal into modern life[5].

One of the most deeply-rooted feudal theories was that “the King should
live of his own,” that is, that the ordinary revenues derived from the
crown lands, the customs and feudal dues, should serve for the ordinary
needs of the government, and that taxes should be levied only in time of
war, or to meet extraordinary need. This theory had seldom corresponded
to facts, and it was now quite untenable, but the tax-payer naturally
cherished it. Henry’s taxation had already aroused great discontent, but
the need for a sufficient revenue did not grow less, and the King could
not afford to give up the money which, as supreme head of the Church of
England, he diverted from the Pope, or the still more considerable sum
that he hoped to derive from the suppression of the monasteries. But
while the great mass of the nation desired nothing so much as the
remission of all taxes, the educated classes were beginning to realise
that this would not be such a very desirable state of affairs. The idea
was just beginning to emerge that if the King did not need money he
would never call a parliament, and that the liberties of the nation
depended on its control of taxation. When the King declared that if only
the wealth of the monasteries were in his hands he would never ask his
people for money again, there were a few who saw that the King’s wealth
was a much more serious danger than the King’s poverty[6].

The state of affairs on the continent permitted Henry to do as he
pleased, for Francis I had again attacked Charles V, and the Pope could
do nothing while his two champions were cutting each other’s throats.
Henry therefore continued to carry out the policy expressed in the acts
of his two last parliaments, the long parliament which met in December
1529 and was dissolved in March 1536, and its brief successor which met
in June and was dissolved in July 1536.

A word must be said about the composition of these parliaments. A Tudor
House of Commons was not, of course, representative in the modern sense
of the word, for it consisted exclusively of country gentlemen and
wealthy merchants, who were in most cases appointed by a small close
body rather than popularly elected. The influence of the crown,
exercised through the sheriff or through some local magnate, was
paramount at the nomination of members, and it does not seem to have
been resented, so long as the chosen candidate was a well-known man in
the district for which he was appointed. The electors were willing that
the King should choose the man most pleasing to himself among perhaps a
dozen equally eligible persons, but gentlemen and burgesses alike
resented the “carpet-bagger,” the stranger sent down from the court, who
knew nothing of the place and despised the provincials whom he nominally
represented[7]. They also objected to members who held government posts,
and, curiously enough, bye-elections were considered an abuse, as it was
maintained that when a member died his seat ought to remain vacant until
the next general election[8].

The parliament of 1529–36 violated even these elementary conditions of
representation; Cromwell, who came into power during these seven years,
gradually developed the art of managing the House of Commons to an
extent which had never been known before, and the electors were
powerless in his hands, because they could not understand what was
happening[9]. It must also be noticed that the electors in 1529 had very
little means of knowing what measures would be brought before the
parliament. They knew of course that the King would want money, and they
knew also that the question of the divorce would be dealt with, but even
the best-informed can hardly have foreseen the act for the dissolution
of the smaller monasteries. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that
the acts of this parliament were not passed with the consent, or even
with the knowledge, of the nation. Their true originator was believed to
be Thomas Cromwell. Whether his rise had been slow or rapid, this
remarkable man was now (1536) at the height of his power[10], and the
greater number of this parliament’s acts were stages in the progress of
his policy. By birth Cromwell came of the English lower middle class,
but part of his early manhood was spent in Italy[11], and his character
was an illustration of the proverb “An Englishman Italianate is a devil
incarnate.” He belonged to the new school of political thought which had
for its exponents Philip de Commines and Machiavelli, and for its heroes
Louis XI and Caesar Borgia. Thomas Cromwell, clothier, solicitor and
moneylender, seems genuinely to have believed that it was the duty of
any man who by birth, luck or skill became a prince, to make himself
absolute, and to guard against any breath of opposition at home as
carefully as he did against any hint of attack from abroad. He was
really convinced that an absolute autocracy was the best form of
government for any country, and that it was the duty of a good subject
to do everything in his power to strengthen the hand of the King.
Religion meant nothing at all to him. He conformed to the existing
usages, whatever they might be, but distinctions between creeds only
interested him in so far as they might be used politically. Honour,
mercy, conscience, were simply the prevailing weaknesses of mankind,
which might be employed for his advantage, just as he might take
advantage of drunkenness or stupidity. It was not so much that he
disregarded as that he never felt them. With all this moral
insensibility he was a singularly efficient administrator. Instead of
fearing and slighting the houses of parliament, he manipulated them for
his own ends, while his spy system was unrivalled. But this was the
darker side of his labours; it was also part of his policy to promote
trade, to put the kingdom in a state of defence, to repress crime and
violence as well as rebellion. His faults as a statesman were rapacity
and a too great desire to interfere in every department of life. It was
now six years since his celebrated promise “to make Henry the richest
king that ever was in England”[12]; at last the treasures of the
monasteries were within his grasp, and his promise seemed on the point
of fulfilment.

Cromwell’s low birth exposed him to the scorn of his contemporaries, and
has been brought up against him even by modern historians; nevertheless
if it were necessary to make a choice between his moral character and
that of his high-born opponent, Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, it could
scarcely be denied that Norfolk was the greater scoundrel of the two. He
was simply a courtier and politician, with not a tenth of Cromwell’s
ability. By inclination he was conservative and favoured the Old
Learning, but if he could advance himself by denying his politics or his
faith he was quite ready to abandon either. Cromwell at least had a
political end in view; Norfolk merely wished to aggrandise himself and
had no other object.

It goes without saying that the two regarded each other with the
bitterest hatred. After the fall of Anne Boleyn Cromwell managed to
procure Norfolk’s banishment from the court, but they were in constant
correspondence with each other. Among all the records of misery, crime
and brutality in the Letters and Papers of the time there is perhaps
nothing more horrible than Norfolk’s letters to Cromwell; the sickly
expressions of goodwill, the filthy jokes, the grimaces of thankfulness,
make them vile reading. But not many letters were written in the summer
of 1536, for Norfolk had just been worsted, and Cromwell was completely
master of the situation.

The general course of Cromwell’s systematic attack on the Church is so
well known that it is necessary only to recapitulate those features
which chiefly aroused popular indignation.

In 1529, the first year of Henry’s long parliament, a very sweeping
measure was passed to regulate the clergy. They were prohibited from
holding any land by lease. All leases held by ecclesiastics must be
transferred to laymen before the next Michaelmas. Spiritual persons were
prohibited from trading, except in the case of monasteries selling the
produce of their own lands for their own needs. No priest was henceforth
to hold more than one benefice of value above £8 yearly, but existing
pluralists might retain four; members of the King’s Council, chaplains
of the royal family or of peers, and brothers of peers and knights, were
permitted to hold three, and Doctors of Divinity might hold two. Every
priest was required to reside on one of his benefices, but exceptions
were made in favour of pilgrims, persons on the King’s service, scholars
at universities, and royal chaplains. Spiritual persons were prohibited
from keeping breweries and tan-yards[13]. The chief object of this
statute was probably to facilitate the transference of ecclesiastical
property to laymen[14]. It must have caused great indignation among the
clergy. They may have hoped at first that it would not be strictly
enforced, but in 1536 it was re-enacted with still more stringent
residentiary clauses[15].

In 1530 the clergy of England were called upon to face the overwhelming
charge that they had all offended against the Statute of Praemunire by
acknowledging Wolsey’s legatine authority. In order to buy their pardon
from the King they were compelled to pay a heavy fine. In addition to
this the King demanded that they should acknowledge him “the only
Protector and Supreme Head of the Church and clergy of England,” and
that cure of souls was committed to him, “curæ animarum ejus majestati
commissæ et populo sibi commisso debite inservire possimus.” He made
other demands, but these were the most important points. The clergy
would only accept the title qualified by the phrase “quantum per Christi
leges licet,” “as far as the laws of Christ will allow.”[16] They
applied the same qualifications to the phrase about the cure of souls
“ut et curæ animarum populi ejus majestati commissi _dehinc_ servire
possimus,” “and so far (as the laws of Christ will allow) we are able to
agree that the cure of the souls of his people has been committed to his
Majesty.” This acknowledgment was made, as far as can be discovered,
only by the southern convocation. The questions were not put to the
northern convocation, and it seems that at least three of the northern
bishops, Tunstall being one, protested against the new title, even with
the modification[17]. However the King was satisfied for the moment by
the compromise, and the clergy were solemnly pardoned[18].

It is not necessary to go into the complicated questions of the Petition
of the Commons, the Answer of the Ordinaries, and the Submission of the
Clergy in 1532, as they were not understood by the people at large[19].
Passing over the anti-papal legislation of the following years, those
acts which were protested against by the rebels are the only ones which
need be mentioned. The first of these was the Act which conditionally
restrained the payment of Annates or First Fruits to Rome in 1532[20], a
prohibition which was made absolute in 1534[21]. The fault found with
this statute was not that the payments were no longer made to Rome, but
that they were still levied by the King.

In 1534 Henry attacked the Church of Rome at a vital point. On 31 March
of that year the question was put to the Convocation of Canterbury,
“Whether the Roman pontiff has any greater jurisdiction bestowed on him
by God in the Holy Scripture in this realm of England than any other
foreign bishop?” Only four of those present voted for the Pope’s
authority, and it was consequently resolved by a large majority that he
had no such power[22]. On 5 May the same resolution was passed by the
Convocation of York without a dissenting vote[23]. Following on this,
Henry caused the Supremacy Act to be passed in November 1534. This
measure conferred upon the King and his heirs for ever the title of
“Only supreme head on earth of the Church of England.” The saving clause
“quantum per Christi leges licet” was quietly ignored[24].

It must always be remembered that behind this brief summary the great
drama of the rival queens, Katherine of Arragon and Anne Boleyn, had
been running its course. The anti-papal acts so far had been diplomatic
moves. In the more remote country districts they were probably hardly
known and not at all understood. But at this point Henry resolved to
make the whole nation realise their altered relation to Rome.

In April 1535 Henry issued a mandate which declared that “sundry persons
both religious and secular, priests and curates, daily set forth and
extol the jurisdiction and authority of the Bishop of Rome, otherwise
called Pope, sowing their pestilential and false doctrine, praying for
him in the pulpit, making him a god, illuding and seducing our subjects,
and bringing them into great errors, sedition and evil opinions, more
preserving the power, laws and jurisdiction of the said bishop than the
most holy laws and precepts of Almighty God.” Any person offending in
this way was to be apprehended at once and committed to prison without
bail until the King’s pleasure in his case was known[25]. Royal letters
were sent out on 1 June 1535 to all the bishops to command them to
declare the King’s new title in their sermons every Sunday, and to cause
their clergy to do the same. The name of the Bishop of Rome was to be
erased from all services and mass books. This was followed on the 3rd by
an “Order for preaching and bidding of the beads in all sermons to be
made within the realm.” The Pope and the Cardinals of Rome were no
longer to be named in the bidding of the beads. The prayers were to be
“for the whole Catholic Church and for the Catholic Church of the realm;
for the King, only Supreme Head of the Catholic Church of England, for
Queen Anne and the Lady Elizabeth, for the whole clergy and temporality,
and especially for such as the preacher might name of devotion; for the
souls of the dead, and specially of such as it might please the preacher
to name.” Every preacher was ordered to preach against the usurped power
of the Bishop of Rome, and they were to abstain for one year from any
reference to purgatory, honouring of saints, marriage of priests,
pilgrimages, miracles[26]. The shock which this measure gave to the
nation will be to some extent illustrated in the following chapters. It
struck at the very foundations of the existing creed. The papal
authority was not always popular in England,—men grumbled at the Pope,
sneered at him, criticised him,—but that he was the only supreme head of
Christianity was as firmly believed and as confidently accepted as that
the sun rose in the east. When simple country priests were called upon
to deny weekly a proposition which they had never before dreamed of
questioning, they and their congregations might well think that the
foundations of society were giving way, and their worst fears seemed to
be realised by the Act for the Suppression of the Smaller Monasteries,
passed in the following year[27]. It is not necessary to repeat the
well-known story of Henry’s dealings with the monasteries, and the whole
of the following work is a commentary on it.

In the same year the privileges of the palatinate of Durham and other
exempted districts were abolished[28].

In the short parliament of June-July 1536 two Acts were passed of
considerable importance. By one all bulls, breves, dispensations and
faculties from the Pope now within the realm were declared void[29]. In
1534 the clergy had been prohibited from obtaining dispensations, etc.
from Rome[30], but those obtained before 12 March 1533 had been
expressly declared valid. Now, however, they were required to surrender
their papal licences, etc. to the Archbishop of Canterbury before
Michaelmas 1537[31]. The Imperial ambassador, Chapuys, reported that
this was the statute which the parliament was most reluctant to pass, as
it involved serious questions of legitimacy, “but in the end everything
must go as the King wishes.”[32] The other statute dealt with the
question of sanctuary and benefit of clergy. Already several statutes
had been passed limiting this much abused privilege[33]. In this statute
benefit of clergy was denied to any ecclesiastic who committed the
crimes specified in former statutes as those for which no layman might
claim benefit. The offending priest was to be punished like a layman,
without degradation from his holy orders[34].

By the time that this mass of legislation was completed there were very
few people in England who knew what they were really intended by the
government to believe. In order that the new state of things might be
understood, the King as Supreme Head of the Church of England, with the
advice and assent of Convocation, published Ten Articles about Religion.
They were issued in June 1536, when the year’s prohibition of
controversy about purgatory, pilgrimages, etc. was at an end[35]. The
first five articles stated those points in belief which were necessary
to salvation. They were the grounds of faith, as set forth in the Bible,
the Creeds as interpreted by the patristic traditions not contrary to
Scripture, and by the Acts of the Four Councils; Justification; Baptism;
Penance, which included confession and good works; and the Sacrament of
the Altar. Thus only three of the seven sacraments were named as
essential. The other five Articles dealt with such points “as have been
of a long continuance for a decent order and honest policy, prudently
instituted and used in the churches of our realm, and be for that same
purpose and end to be observed and kept accordingly, although they be
not expressly commanded of God, nor necessary to our salvation.” These
were paying honour to saints, placing their images in churches and
praying to them; the rites and ceremonies of the Church; and the belief
in purgatory, which involved prayers for the dead[36].

The Ten Articles received the assent of the southern, but not of the
northern convocation, although they were signed by the Archbishop of
York and the Bishop of Durham[37]. They were supplemented in July by an
order of the Supreme Head and Convocation that no holy days should be
observed in harvest time, 1 July–29 September, except the feasts of the
Apostles, the Virgin Mary, and St George; or in the law terms, except
Ascension Day, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, All Hallows and
Candlemas; all feasts of the Dedication should be observed on the first
Sunday in October, and no “church holidays,” which were the feasts of
the patron saints of churches, should be observed unless they fell on an
authorised holy day[38].

In the same month these new regulations were enforced by the first Royal
Injunctions of Henry VIII[39]. The publication of these injunctions “was
the first act of pure supremacy done by the King, for in all that had
gone before he had acted with the concurrence of Convocation.”[40] The
Ten Articles were a compromise between the Old and the New Learning, but
the Injunctions, which were issued in Cromwell’s name, went further in
the way of innovations. The clergy were ordered to preach every Sunday
for the next quarter, and afterwards twice a quarter, on the subject of
the King’s Supremacy, setting forth the abolition of the Bishop of
Rome’s pretended authority. They were also to expound and enforce the
Ten Articles and to declare the new order for holy days. They were to
discourage superstitious ceremonies, and to exhort all men to “apply
themselves to the keeping of God’s commandments and fulfilling of His
works of charity, rather than to make pilgrimages or bestow money on
saints and relics.” In this the Injunctions went further than the
Articles, in which pilgrimages were not mentioned. Another innovation
was the order that all servants and young people must be taught the
Lord’s Prayer, the Creed and the Ten Commandments in English. The
remaining injunctions directed the clergy to study, give alms, lead
sober lives, etc.

In addition to these measures, any one of which was sufficient to arm
all the forces of tradition and religious conservatism against the King,
several important political Acts had been passed, which were scarcely
more likely to be popular. Among these the three Succession Acts were
the most important. The first declared the Princess Mary illegitimate
and entailed the succession on the heirs male of the King and Anne
Boleyn, or failing heirs male, on the Princess Elizabeth. All were to
swear to maintain this act, under penalty of high treason[41]. The
second Succession Act confirmed the first and supplied a form of oath to
be taken[42], but this was superseded by the third, which has been
described above. The Treason Act gave a new definition of high treason.
It was declared to be high treason “if any person ... do _maliciously_
wish, will or desire by words or writing, or by craft imagine, invent,
practise, or attempt any bodily harm to be done or committed to the
King’s most royal person, the queen’s or their heir’s apparent, or to
deprive them of their dignity, title or name of their royal estates, or
_slanderously and maliciously_ publish and pronounce, by express wri.
ting or words, that the King our sovereign lord should be heretic,
schismatic, tyrant, infidel or usurper of the crown.”[43] This act was
passed only after prolonged debate in the House of Commons, and the King
was forced to permit the word “maliciously” to be inserted; this was
done in the hope of saving those who could not conscientiously call the
King Supreme Head of the Church, but did and said nothing to prevent
others from giving him the title[44].

It was for offences against these statutes, the second Succession Act
and the Treason Act, that Sir Thomas More and Cardinal Fisher were put
to death in July 1535. Pope Paul III, roused at last by this deliberate
defiance of his authority, prepared a bull of interdict and deposition
against Henry in the autumn of the same year[45]. But he had not
sufficient faith in his own curses to launch them at Henry without
adequate secular support. If he had had the courage of a medieval pope,
he would have published the bull with perfect confidence that it would
accomplish its own work, without earthly aid; what is more, it would
very likely have been effective, as will be shown hereafter. Paul III,
however, endeavoured to back up his supernatural threats by physical
force, and failed. Francis I protested vigorously against the
publication of the bull, as he was Henry’s ally, while Charles V was not
in a position to lend his aid, and the Pope suspended it for the
time[46].

Returning to the unpopular statutes of the long parliament, the
financial situation must be briefly considered. Henry’s money troubles
have already been mentioned. The usual levies by direct taxation, the
Fifteenth and the Tenth, had originally been the actual fraction of the
tax-payer’s possessions, but since 1334 they had become fixed payments
levied from each county without reassessment, and therefore did not
represent the wealth of the nation[47]. In addition to the usual
Fifteenth and Tenth, the long parliament granted to the King a general
subsidy of 1_d._ in the £ on incomes above £20 a year, levied by
commissioners who were sent into every shire to discover through the
constables the amount which each person ought to pay[48]. In Henry’s
reign at any rate a real assessment was made, and the measure was
consequently exceedingly unpopular.

Another act which was designed to increase the revenue was the Statute
of Uses[49]. The object of this statute was to preserve intact to the
King the feudal dues from estates which were held directly from him in
chief. Such estates might not be given by will, but their holders
usually provided for their families by leaving a rent charge on the
estate to the use of their younger children or other dependents. The
statute abolished such uses entirely, and thus deprived the whole
family, except the eldest son, of any income from an estate held in
chief from the King.

These statutes were all passed at the direct instance of the King, and
chiefly for his profit, but statutes of a more disinterested character
were not more popular. Tudor statesmen were firmly convinced that it was
their duty to regulate the trade of the nation in every possible way.
Their constant interference in minute points must have been most
exasperating to tradesmen, and although their object was always the
common good, such unwise meddling produced bad results more often than
good ones, and therefore was detested not only by the sellers, but also
by the buyers, whose interests it was supposed to protect. Moreover the
common people had no confidence in the government, and were always ready
to believe rumours that these acts would turn out to be new forms of
taxation.

A statute which aroused great indignation in the eastern counties was
passed in 1535. Clothiers were ordered to weave into their cloth their
respective trade marks, and to specify the length of each piece of cloth
on a seal attached to it. Until this was done the aulnager was not
permitted to seal the goods. At the same time the legal breadth of
various kinds of cloth, which had been regulated by previous statutes,
was increased, except in the case of Suffolk set cloths. The provisions
of the statute did not apply to the county of Worcester[50].

In order, to check the evils of enclosures, which were increasing
rapidly[51], it was enacted that no grazier might keep a flock of more
than 2,000 sheep[52], and by another statute landowners who had
abandoned husbandry for sheep-farming since 1515, were ordered to
re-erect or repair the houses of husbandry on their lands under penalty
of forfeiting half the land to the crown[53]. These two statutes were
intended to check the depopulation caused by sheep-farming enclosures,
and were therefore popular in intention, but they were naturally
resented by the landowners, and rumours spread that both cattle and
sheep were to be taxed or confiscated.

Other measures with an equally good object had equally unfortunate
results. Ever since 1529 the government had been endeavouring to keep
down the price of meat. As all prices were rising rapidly during this
period, owing to causes beyond the control of legislation, these efforts
had exasperated the butchers, while they left the purchasers in a rather
worse case than before[54]. In 1534 by one of several statutes dealing
with the subject the Lords of the Council were empowered to issue
proclamations “from time to time as the case shall require to set and
tax reasonable prices of all such kinds of victuals” as “cheese, butter,
capons, hens, chickens,” etc.[55] It seems possible that this statute,
together with the ineffective regulations which accompanied it, gave
rise to the rumour that all poor men were to be prohibited from eating
“white meat” unless they paid a tax to the King on every chicken, capon
or such-like[56]. But whether the rumour may be traced to this statute
or not, it will be seen in what follows that the butchers sought their
revenge on the King by taking an active part in the insurrection.

From this brief review it is obvious that the government had been
pursuing a remarkably daring policy in all departments of national life.
In the following chapters an attempt will be made to show how the
different classes were affected by this varied mass of legislation, and
what their feelings were towards its originators, the King and Thomas
Cromwell.




                               CHAPTER II
                            PLOTS AND TOKENS


Before the Act dissolving the Lesser Monasteries was passed, in March
1536, the opposition to Henry’s policy was too much broken up by class
distinctions to be very formidable; nor did the chief of the
conservative nobles ever encourage the popular movement. Henry was able
to crush his opponents separately, when a united attack might have
shaken even his weight from the throne.

In the first place he was opposed by the party of the Old Nobility. By
this we do not mean Norfolk and other time-servers of his opinion, but
another and weaker faction, the remaining members of the Yorkist
nobility, who had survived the Wars of the Roses. The religious problems
of Henry’s reign somewhat obscure its connection with the history of the
century before it. The days of Cranmer and Pole seem so far removed from
those of Warwick the Kingmaker and Richard Crookback that it requires an
effort to realise that Henry had to deal with a legacy of trouble from
the earlier period, as well as with his own share of the difficulties of
the new age. The previous storm had not yet passed away when the new
cloud appeared on the horizon and the two broke in full fury upon the
unfortunate house of Pole.

Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, the only living child of George, Duke
of Clarence, was chief among the old aristocracy, who were now sometimes
called the party of the White Rose. Katherine of Arragon had been warmly
attached to the Countess and her family. The tender-hearted queen
believed that Margaret’s brother was sacrificed in order to bring about
her marriage with Prince Arthur. The Countess’ eldest son, Henry, Lord
Montague, married Jane Neville, daughter to Lord Abergavenny, while her
daughter Ursula became the wife of Lord Stafford, the Duke of
Buckingham’s son. It was even whispered that higher honours awaited the
Poles. The Countess became governess to the Princess Mary, and Queen
Katherine would gladly have seen a marriage between her daughter and her
friend’s son Reginald, who was a promising lad of sixteen when Mary was
born in 1516. The family was closely connected by blood and friendship
with Edward Courtenay, Marquis of Exeter, and his wife Gertrude. The
Marquis was the son of Katherine, the youngest daughter of Edward IV,
and therefore heir to the throne, after the Tudors: a very dangerous
position[57].

Henry had learnt his lesson from his father too well to allow this state
of things to continue. For the last hundred years the nobles had kept
the kingdom in a turmoil. Northumberland, Warwick, the second Duke of
Buckingham, had in turn made and unmade kings at their pleasure; now the
day of reckoning had come. The two Henrys performed in England the work
that Richelieu was to achieve in France a century later; they made the
nobles realise at the cost of much bloodshed, that there was to be one
king in the country, not half-a-dozen. No one can deny that they
triumphed only by means of cruelty and injustice, and that their motives
were selfish. But when it is considered how greatly the nation
benefited, and when the fate of countries like Poland where the work was
never carried out is remembered, it seems ungrateful to abuse the kings
who did so much for their country at the cost of their reputation.

Buckingham was executed in 1521 and his son was ruined[58]; Montague and
Abergavenny were thrown into prison[59] and made to pay heavy fines. The
reason was simply that they were powerful enough to be dangerous, and
Henry was powerful enough to crush them.

So far the King had acted from the old motives and guarded against the
old dangers; with the divorce of Katherine new factors came into play.
The Pole family was devoted to the Queen, and would in any case have
opposed the divorce. In addition to this motive the Countess was a very
devout woman and had brought up her sons to be pillars of the
Church[60]. In 1532 Reginald Pole with some difficulty obtained leave to
go abroad, to escape acquiescence in the divorce.

Reginald Pole was a man of quiet, amiable and studious disposition. He
had been educated at the King’s expense, and was genuinely fond of his
patron. There seems to be little doubt that if he had been left alone he
would have been content to live peacefully in Italy with his friends and
his studies. There he could have deplored the misfortunes of his country
without attempting to remedy them by any more dangerous means than the
vague, ineffectual plots at which legitimists always excel. But he was
shaken out of his tranquillity by Henry himself. Early in 1535 Starkey,
the King’s chaplain, who was a friend of Pole’s, sent him a royal
command to state in writing his opinion on the royal title of Supreme
Head of the Church of England. Henry wished to force Pole to take up a
definite position. If he was friendly he might be useful; if hostile, he
was dangerous, and the King was determined to know how to regard him.
Pole was at first reluctant to undertake the task, but once he embarked
on it he worked hard, and indulged to the full in the dangerous
satisfaction of giving the King a piece of his mind. The book “De
Unitate Ecclesiastica” was finished by the end of the year, but it was
not despatched until Pole received the news of Anne Boleyn’s fall. Then,
imagining, that the King might now be induced to change his policy, he
sent it to England, at the end of May 1536, by the hands of his trusted
servant Michael Throgmorton. It was, as its name implies, a vigorous
defence of the one and indivisible Catholic Church under one supreme
head, the Pope. The language of the book does not exceed the bounds of
controversy as then observed; though, considering the King’s figure, the
comparison between Henry and an unclean barrel was rather tactless. But
Pole stated with perfect frankness his very strong disapproval of the
King’s proceedings. From that time forth there was no hope that Henry
would ever be reconciled to his kinsman[61].

The interest of the book to a modern reader lies in its revelation of
Pole’s point of view. He had an essentially medieval mind; throughout
his writings he assumes the political ideal of the middle ages, which
pictured the Pope and the Emperor as the spiritual and secular heads of
Europe. If any lesser king withdrew his allegiance from the Pope it was
the Emperor’s duty to make him return to the fold. Hence it was the
obvious duty of Charles V to reduce Henry to obedience. It never seems
to have occurred to Pole that any life which there might once have been
in this theory was now extinguished, and that the condition of affairs
in medieval Europe had passed away for ever. After Katherine’s death
Charles had no more justification for invading England simply because he
disapproved of the English government than England had for invading
France because she disapproved of Napoleon. Besides, what with Francis
I, the Turks and the German Reformers, Charles had so many
embarrassments that it was in the highest degree improbable he would
ever be free to attempt the subjugation of England. But Pole was blind
to all this, and he and his English friends continued to put their trust
in foreign princes with disastrous consequences to themselves.

Pole had written his book at the King’s express request, stating his
opinions quite honestly; he believed his country was going to perdition,
and that a patriot’s only hope lay in force. From the point of view of
the English government the book was certainly treasonable. It clearly
and expressly urged all Englishmen to take up arms against the King, and
exhorted two foreign princes to invade the country and help the rebels.
Pole, however, was very careful that the manuscript should not be copied
or printed, and its contents were only known to three or four of his
friends[62]. It is unnecessary to describe the King’s anger on receiving
the book, or the letters of remonstrance which he forced the Countess of
Salisbury and Lord Montague to write to the offending author. He himself
dissembled his anger, and summoned Pole to return home and there confer
with wise men on the subject, about which he was misinformed. Pole was
too prudent to accept this royal invitation[63].

The policy of the White Rose party is embodied in “De Unitate.” The plan
at the root of all their scheming was that Charles V should invade
England, marry Mary to Reginald Pole[64], force Henry to acknowledge
Katherine, and establish a sort of regency, leaving Henry only the title
of King. There were two serious flaws in this scheme. First, the
conspirators overlooked the fact that an invasion was sure to cause a
violent reaction in favour of Henry, who was at least an Englishman:
they were, indeed, hopelessly out of touch with the feeling of the
nation at large. Secondly, nothing was more unlikely than that Charles
would consent to a marriage between Mary and Pole, for he regarded her
as his property and would be sure, if he had the opportunity, to bestow
her hand on some dependant of his own. Ruling, as he did, over so many
different countries, he could not realise how strong national feeling
was in such an isolated kingdom as England, and how desirable therefore
an English husband would be for Mary, if she was ever to become Queen.

Thus the White Rose party was following quite the wrong path, intent on
will-o’-the-wisp hopes of the Emperor’s help when they should have
turned to the mass of the nation for assistance. After Katherine’s death
the prospect that Charles would interfere in English politics was very
distant. King Henry did not “wear yellow for mourning” for nothing[65].
But Exeter and the Poles looked only to the Emperor, and while they did
this Henry had little to fear from them. Other members of the party saw
their mistake after a while. First among these was Lord Darcy.

Thomas, Lord Darcy, was the son of Sir William Darcy by his wife
Euphemia, daughter to Sir John Langton[66]. On his father’s death (1488)
he came into the lands in Lincolnshire which had belonged to the Darcys
since Doomsday Book was compiled, and also those lands in Yorkshire,
including the family seat of Templehurst, which had come to the family
by marriage in the reign of Edward III. He was already over twenty-one
and had probably married Dousabella[67], daughter to Sir Richard Tempest
of the Dale, who was the mother of his four sons, George, Richard,
William and Arthur. Darcy was raised to the peerage in 1505. In the same
year he was made steward of the lands of the young Earl of Westmorland.
This young man became Earl in 1523. The Earl’s character has left few
traces upon history. Norfolk described him as “of such heat and
hastiness of nature as to be unmeet” to hold the office of Warden of the
Marches[68]. He was connected with the White Rose party by his marriage
with Katherine, daughter to the unfortunate Duke of Buckingham. His
mother was Edith, sister to William, Lord Sandes.

Darcy’s great influence in the north was in part owing to this
connection with the Nevilles which was strengthened by his second
marriage, to Lady Neville, the young Earl’s mother. Darcy held various
offices of trust on the Borders during the reign of Henry VII. The King
kept a watchful eye on his powerful servant, and in 1496 he was indicted
at Quarter Sessions in the West Riding for giving various people his
badge, “a token or livery called the Buck’s Head.” However, Henry by his
well-known system of compensation created him Deputy Warden of the East
and Middle Marches (16 Dec., 1498) and later Warden of the East Marches
(1 Sept., 1505). On the accession of Henry VIII his offices were
confirmed to him[69].

Early in the new reign occurred the strangest adventure of Darcy’s
life—his expedition to Spain. Ferdinand had asked his son-in-law for the
aid of 1500 English archers in his war against the Moors. Darcy at his
own request was appointed leader of this force. The troops were mustered
on 29 March, 1511. The expedition, consisting of five companies of 250
men each, sailed from Plymouth in May and arrived at Cadiz on 1 June.
There was in Darcy something of the spirit of his crusading ancestors;
but the time for a crusade had passed. The English were unruly and
quarrelled with the Spaniards so much that Ferdinand was only too glad
to seize the excuse of a truce with the Moors to pack them off home
again. They were in Spain little more than a fortnight, and on 17 June
reembarked without having loosed a shaft against the enemy. Darcy was
bitterly disappointed and to add to his troubles the voyage home was
long and stormy: on 3 August they had only reached St Vincent and he was
obliged to spend large sums on victualling the ships and paying his men.
His life-long friend, Sir Robert Constable, was one of the five captains
under him who shared the humiliation and expense of it all. Such an
experience might have made him shun all further dealings with Spain, but
on his return to England the Spanish ambassador dealt liberally with him
in the matter of money and overcame his resentment. The archers who went
out to fight for a Christian prince against the Moors wore as their
badge a curious device called the “Five Wounds of Christ.”[70]

Darcy took no part in the war with Scotland in 1513. He was not on the
glorious field of Flodden, where the future Duke of Norfolk, then Lord
Admiral, won such fame that for long years he was beloved through all
the north. Darcy had gone with the King to France, where at the siege of
Terouanne some accident caused the rupture from which he suffered for
the rest of his life. He returned to the strenuous work of governing the
Borders, of which more will be said hereafter. During the period of
Cardinal Wolsey’s power, Darcy was on good terms with him; but in July
1529 he drew up an indictment of the falling favourite. This, in the
form of articles, was signed by the Peers in Parliament, on 1 Dec. of
the same year. Exactly how much discredit attaches to him for thus
acting against a man for whom he had long professed friendship, must be
decided by others. The case against Darcy is made rather worse by the
fact that he was at first ready to forward the divorce of Katherine of
Arragon. He signed the Memorial of the Lords to Clement VII, and even
appeared as a witness at the Queen’s trial, although he had no evidence
of any importance to give. On the other hand, he must have disapproved
of Wolsey’s policy for some time, and the tie between the two men never
seems to have been very close. Like others he was slow to realise the
lengths to which Henry was prepared to go in order to get what he
wanted. He did not foresee that Wolsey’s policy might lead to a policy
of still more daring innovation. But when the situation was plain to him
he fully declared himself. In January 1532 Norfolk made an appeal to a
private meeting of persons of importance to defend the Royal Prerogative
against foreign interference, with the suggestion that matrimonial
causes, i.e. the divorce of Katherine, ought to be considered a matter
of temporal jurisdiction. Darcy answered. In his speech he maintained
that such causes were undoubtedly spiritual, and therefore the Pope was
the supreme judge in them. He further insinuated that the King’s Council
were trying to escape the responsibility of deciding on a course of
action by dragging others into the matter[71]. He also addressed the
Lords on the fitness of parliament to deal with matters touching the
Faith, but the date and purport of this declaration are uncertain[72].
The result of his boldness was that he was informed that his presence
was not required at the succeeding sessions[73] of the parliament.

Nevertheless he was not allowed to return to the north, but was kept in
London, much against his will, from the winter of 1529[74] till at least
as late as July 1535. The King would have been well advised to remember
the proverb about idle hands. Darcy, the statesman and warrior, was kept
some five years with nothing to do but brood over the changes which were
taking place around him, and over the violation of his deepest and most
honourable feelings. Cromwell and the King might have foreseen the
result. Darcy had a strong sentiment of personal loyalty to the King; he
could not bear it to be thought that “Old Tom had one traitor’s tooth in
his head.” But as an honest man and a good Christian he felt he could
not stand by and see the Queen and her daughter dishonoured, the Church
destroyed, and the land brought under an absolute despotism, without
making an effort to save them. The doctrine of the responsibility of the
minister salved his conscience; it was easy to believe that if only
Cromwell could be removed, Henry would turn back from the strange and
dangerous road along which he was being led.

Darcy was on intimate terms with Lord Hussey, a member of one of the new
official families which sprang up so plentifully under the Tudors. Sir
William Hussey, father to John, Lord Hussey, was Lord Chief Justice of
the King’s Bench in 17 Edward IV[75]; his parents are unknown. John
Hussey assisted in putting down Lovell’s Rebellion in 1486, and obtained
a footing at Court. He was partner to the exactions of Empson and
Dudley, and on the accession of Henry VIII was obliged to obtain a
pardon, but he did not lose favour with the King. He received large
grants of land in Lincolnshire, where his seat was at Sleaford[76];
there he was unpopular with his neighbours, who accused him of arrogance
and ostentation[77]. He served in France in 1513, and was employed on
diplomatic missions until in 1529 he was summoned to the House of Lords
as Baron Hussey of Sleaford. Through the whole of his career he had been
a loyal and unquestioning supporter of the government as it was. His
promotion was probably due to the King’s desire to strengthen his party
in the House of Lords. He did what was required of him; he signed the
document requesting the Pope to sanction the divorce of Katherine, and
gave evidence for the King at the Queen’s trial. But Darcy, who was
really opposed to the divorce, had done as much as this. There is no
doubt, however, that Henry believed Hussey to be a man whom he could
safely trust, for in 1533 he was appointed chamberlain to the King’s
daughter Mary, who had just been declared illegitimate[78]. It was to
his tender care she was confided for the time of insult and desolation
her father had in store for her. Unfortunately for Hussey a warm
friendship sprang up between Mary and his wife Lady Anne, the daughter
of George Grey, Earl of Kent[79]. Hussey himself, though fairly
hard-hearted, seems to have been touched by the sufferings of his
helpless charge. It must have been this sympathy which drew him into
communication with the White Rose party.

About midsummer 1534 Darcy dined with Hussey at his London house, and
his old friend Sir Robert Constable was there as well. They talked of a
sermon preached by Sir Francis Bigod’s priest; Bigod was a young man of
great lands in the north, who inclined to the New Learning; his father
had been among Darcy’s friends. In the sermon under discussion the
chaplain had “likened our Lady to a pudding when the meat was out.” Not
unnaturally shocked by such an expression, they all declared they would
be “none heretics” but die Christian men. There by Hussey’s account the
matter ended; but in September of the same year he was in communication
with the Imperial ambassador[80].

Hitherto one of the King’s most unfaltering supporters, Hussey at this
time unquestionably indulged in treasonable practices. All the
disaffected nobles carried on secret correspondence with Chapuys, and
Hussey among the rest begged him to urge the Emperor to invade
England[81], where everyone was ready to welcome him. Chapuys’
correspondence reveals the fact that the nobles, at least, were at that
time thoroughly out of sympathy with the King’s policy. Sir Geoffrey
Pole, the younger brother of Lord Montague and Reginald, was anxious to
leave England, and offered to enter the Emperor’s service in Spain. He
gave up the plan when Chapuys pointed out that he would leave his
friends in the greatest danger; they were already regarded with enough
suspicion[82].

Meanwhile Darcy was making every effort to obtain permission to quit the
Court and go home[83]. But this was steadily refused. In July (1534) he
was upon the jury of peers which acquitted Lord Dacre from a charge of
high treason[84].

In September he was the most considerable of all the peers who were
secretly urging on Charles V an invasion of England[85]. This is the
most indefensible part of Darcy’s conduct. To attempt to change the
policy of the government, even by force if no other way is possible, may
be justifiable. But it was very different to invite a foreign prince to
invade England, and it was a pity that Darcy was so much swayed by the
prevailing policy of the White Rose party as to consent to the scheme.
Doubtless the excuse he would have offered was the position of Katherine
and Mary. They were helpless in the King’s hands. They were inconvenient
to him, and people who inconvenienced Henry seldom lived long. A
national rising would only add to the danger of their situation; but if
Charles joined the rebels the Princesses would at worst be held as
hostages while a sudden raid might snatch them from Henry’s grasp[86].
With this object Darcy requested Charles to send a small force to the
mouth of the Thames, for Mary was at Greenwich. Katherine at Kimbolton
was so much further from the Court that the rebels might hope to rescue
her themselves. For the rest, the old lord only asked the Emperor to
come to some understanding with the King of Scots, and to send to the
North some money, which was very scarce there, and a small number of
arquebus men[87]. Both he and Hussey believed the discontent to be so
widespread that a national rising would soon effect all that was
required without any further assistance from abroad. But Charles was too
busy to send even this slight aid. He instructed his ambassador to hold
out vague hopes to the White Rose party and to do nothing[88].

For some time this policy succeeded. There was much passing up and down
of messages and tokens, and nothing at all was done. Darcy gave Chapuys
“a gold pansy, well enamelled” during the autumn. The pansy was the
badge of the Poles and was to prove a sign of doom to that unhappy
house. At Christmas he presented him with a handsome sword, which
Chapuys supposed to indicate indirectly that the times were ripe “pour
jouer des couteaulx.” His brother-in-law, the brave Lord Sandes, sent
expressions of sympathy; and even the Earl of Northumberland, who was
believed to be the most loyal of the nobles, sent his physician to
Chapuys to assure him that the King was on the brink of ruin[89]. But
time wore on; winter drew to spring and spring to summer—the bloody
spring and summer of the executions under the Supremacy Act[90]. The
Carthusians fell, Sir Thomas More and the gentle Fisher. Still Darcy was
detained in London. Nor was he suspected without good reason, for he had
long since told Chapuys that once back in the north he would secretly
prepare for a general rising. In May he sent an elderly relative of
his[91] to the Imperial ambassador, whom the latter described quaintly
as “of more virtue and zeal than appears externally.” This man proposed
to go in person to the Emperor to discover whether he really meant to
send help, for if he was only deluding the English they were determined
to act for themselves. Chapuys warned him that he would bring Darcy into
danger, but he replied that once his master was in the north he would
not care a button for any suspicions[92].

Hussey, who was still trusted by the government, was at his house in
Sleaford about midsummer 1535. A Yorkshire gentleman, Thomas Rycard,
came to visit him. He found Hussey walking in his garden, and they
talked about the spread of heresy in Yorkshire. Rycard said that as yet
there was little of it, “except a few particular persons who carried in
their bosoms certain books.” He prayed that the nobles might “put the
King’s Grace in rememberance for reformation thereof.” Hussey answered
that there was no hope of their suppression unless the two counties,
Yorkshire and Lincolnshire acted together, and he himself thought it
would be necessary to fight for the Faith[93].

In July (1535) Chapuys reported that he had seen Darcy’s cousin again,
and that “the good old lord” (his by-name among the Imperialist party)
was about to go home at last[94]. It appears from a letter to Cromwell,
dated at Templehurst, that he was at home by 13 Nov. The year date is
not given but it must have been 1535[95].

It is not necessary to describe the character of “Old Tom” at length,
for it stands out from the records so vividly that more than any of his
contemporaries he seems a living man; we learn to know his
out-spokenness, his grim humour, his high sense of honour at a time when
the very meaning of honour was almost forgotten. It was a very cruel
fate which placed him in an age when it was impossible to live according
to his motto, “One God, One King, One Faith.” From the day on which
Darcy rode north there was something stirring in the land far more
serious than any court intrigue, or any wild scheme of the Emperor’s
interference.

To do the White Rose party justice they were less concerned with hopes
of their own advancement than with anxiety for Katherine and Mary. On 6
Nov. 1535, Chapuys wrote to the Emperor: “The Marchioness of Exeter has
sent to inform me that the King has lately said to some of his most
confidential councillors that he would not longer remain in the trouble,
fear and suspense he had so long endured on account of the Queen and the
Princess, and that they should see at the coming Parliament, to get him
released therefrom, swearing most obstinately that he would wait no
longer. The Marchioness declares that this is as true as the Gospel, and
begs me to inform your Majesty and pray you to have pity upon the
ladies.”[96] A few days later he related the sequel: “The personage who
informed me of what I wrote to your Majesty on the 6th about the Queen
and Princess[97]—came yesterday to this city (London) in disguise to
confirm what she had sent to me to say, and conjure me to warn your
Majesty, and beg you most urgently to see a remedy. She added that the
King, seeing some of those to whom he used this language shed tears,
said that tears and wry faces were of no avail, because even if he lost
his crown he would not forbear to carry his purpose into effect.”[98]

It is evident that Henry had purposely alarmed and distressed some of
Katherine’s friends by threats of an outrage which even he could
scarcely have ventured to commit. Was the Marquis of Exeter himself one
of the councillors who wept? Someone must have told the Marchioness
about the King’s threats of getting rid of the Queen and Princess,
either her husband or another of the confidential councillors. And she
herself, if not her informant, was deliberately communicating the
“secrets of the realm of England” to a foreign power. If the King knew
this he was quite justified in regarding the Courtenays with suspicion
and expelling the Marquis from the Council. The Marchioness acted
treasonably, though she did only what any good woman would have done
under the circumstances. But Henry could not be expected to see that.
Katherine soon gave her friends no more care, for she died in January
1536. In the same month Henry’s long parliament met for its last
session, that in which the Act for the Suppression of the Lesser
Monasteries was to be passed.

Lord Hussey begged to be excused attendance, pleading ill-health, but
really, in all probability, because he knew it would be expected to pass
acts against the Church. He came joyfully to the new parliament in June,
assembled on the fall of Anne Boleyn. Mary was now safe and would
probably be restored to the succession; and, on the fall of the late
queen, it was universally hoped that a reaction would take place in
ecclesiastical matters. Here Hussey’s inclination to treason seems to
have ended, and his after connection with the rebellion appears to have
been sheer bad luck. Or perhaps his wife, an ardent rebel, is to be
blamed. She came up with him to London, and at Whitsuntide went to visit
her former mistress, the Lady Mary, with whom she had exchanged tokens
from time to time since they parted. While she was with the disowned
princess on Whit Monday (5 June) she was overheard to call for a drink
for “the Princess,” and on Tuesday she said “the Princess” had gone
walking[99]. As Mary’s only legal title was “the Lady Mary,” Lady Hussey
was arrested and sent to the Tower[100]. The charge must have been that
“the Princess” meant the Princess of Wales; Mary never was created
Princess of Wales, but the title was sometimes informally given to her
before 1529. In England the daughters of Kings were not called
“princesses” until later times. Chapuys, writing on the first of July,
said that the real reason of her imprisonment was the King’s suspicion
that she had encouraged Mary in her refusal to acknowledge the Acts of
Supremacy and the Succession. When he heard that Mary had refused “he
made the most strict inquiries, and the Chancellor and Cromwell visited
certain ladies at their houses, who, with others, were called before the
Council and compelled to swear to the statutes; one of them, the wife of
her chamberlain (Lady Hussey), a lady of great house, and one of the
most virtuous in England, was taken to the Tower, where she is at
present.”[101]

The question naturally arises, how much did Lady Hussey know of all that
was brewing in the North, and what did she tell Mary? But it can never
be answered, though it is certain that whatever her husband’s views Lady
Hussey was strongly in sympathy with the rebels. Mary’s refusal to
subscribe to the Acts caused an immense sensation at Court. The King was
furious and swore in a passion that she should suffer the extreme
penalty. Exeter and Fitzwilliam were excluded from the Council, because
they were suspected of sympathy for her. Even Cromwell was not safe, for
since Anne’s fall he had been bidding for Mary’s goodwill, in
anticipation of her return to Henry’s favour. Chapuys assured Mary that
she was in immediate danger[102], and that any oath she took under the
circumstances would not be binding. Much against her will she yielded to
his entreaties, and signed the form her father sent her, without reading
it. The result was an almost immediate return to her father’s favour and
she consented to dissemble in future, whenever it was necessary[103].
Lady Hussey remained in the Tower throughout July, and her health
suffered from the confinement[104]. On 3 August she was examined[105],
and by the beginning of October she had been released and had gone home
to Sleaford[106].


                          NOTES TO CHAPTER II

  Note A. Although Pole was created a Cardinal in 1536, he was not
  ordained until 1556, after Mary’s marriage with Philip of Spain.

  Note B. The Dictionary of National Biography makes Edith his first
  wife and Dousabella his second, but see Letters and Papers XII (2)
  Index under Darcy, Dousabella and Edith.

  Note C. He was possibly Dr Marmaduke Walby, a prebendary of Carlisle,
  who was closely connected with Sir Robert Constable. After the
  rebellion had broken out, Darcy proposed to send Walby to the
  Netherlands for help, because he knew the Imperial ambassador[107].
  From this it seems probable that Walby had communicated with the
  ambassador on the present occasion.

  Note D. The cautious language is characteristic of the Chapuys
  correspondence. The ambassador never mentioned a name when a
  substitute was to be had. “He of whom I told you” is a very common
  phrase; Darcy is almost invariably “the good old lord.” This may show
  that Chapuys feared his letters might fall into the wrong hands, or it
  may be merely a diplomatic habit. Letters of such vital importance
  must have been sent by the most reliable messengers, but there was
  always a risk of miscarriage. Yet if they were discovered it does not
  seem likely that the thin veil of anonymity could have saved those who
  were compromised.




                              CHAPTER III
                        AFFINITY AND CONFEDERACY


Between the nobles of the Court and the husbandmen in the fields stood
that great and influential class “the gentlemen.” On it the Tudor
government in the main depended. The gentlemen had no more sympathy with
the out-of-date dynastic dreams of the White Rose party than with the
economic grievances of the commons, but they had their own grudges
against the government. They were hard-worked, and gained little thanks,
as Henry went on the truly royal principle that it was honour enough to
be allowed to serve him. They were worried by clumsy legislation, such
as the Statute of Uses; they were angry at the interference with the
House of Commons; and their better nature was outraged by the
suppression of the monasteries founded by their ancestors, of which they
were themselves the pupils and patrons. But the guiding principle of the
country gentlemen was their devotion to landed property. They hated
rebellion, because, sooner or later, it was followed by confiscation of
property. They feared a rising of the lower classes because it
endangered their property, even when it was not originally directed
against themselves. The German peasants in 1524–5 had risen against the
monasteries and the Church; but out of that movement had developed a
bloody civil war between the rich and the poor. If fear of loss deterred
the English gentlemen from opposing the government, no less did hope of
gain. When they realised that the dissolution of the monasteries meant a
general scramble for more property, most of them forgot their religious
scruples; but this realisation did not come all at once.

So much can safely be said, but there is very little evidence as to the
discontent among the gentlemen. It is possible to discover the attitude
of the discontented nobles from the letters of Chapuys, which often give
us a delightful feeling of eavesdropping across four centuries. Nor is
there any doubt as to the feelings of the commons—scores of informers
bear witness to their disaffection. But there is no key to the
confidence of the gentlemen. They were more cautious than the labourers,
less easily watched than the nobles. Their private opinions were known
only to their friends, who would not, of course, inform against them. In
the few cases (all after the rising) when gentleman did inform against
gentleman, there was generally a feud of some standing between them. We
are reduced to arguing backward, as Henry did. The gentlemen, especially
in Yorkshire, were the leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace. We cannot
really accept their own subsequent explanation that they acted against
their will in fear of their own tenants. There is abundant evidence that
risings of the commons alone were very easily put down.

In this chapter we attempt to sketch the histories of half-a-dozen
northern families of gentle or noble blood, in order to give some idea
of the state of the north at the time and to outline the lives and
antecedents of the leaders of the rebellion.

Local government in Henry VIII’s reign depended to a great extent on the
peers. Each nobleman was responsible for the behaviour of his own
district or “country” as it was called; under his supervision the
gentlemen kept order, each on his own lands. The lord’s private
friendships, feuds and marriages had a widespread influence on the lives
of all whom he ruled. North of Trent the gentlemen naturally grouped
themselves into three clans round the three great houses of Clifford,
Percy, and Neville, the heads of which were respectively the earls of
Cumberland, Northumberland, and Westmorland. It is necessary to know
something of genealogy in order to understand the history of a period
when marriages were arranged to suit family politics rather than the
inclination of the parties, and consequently a man was born to an
hereditary friendship with one family, a feud with another, and perhaps
depended on a third for all hope of advancement.

All the noblemen of the northern counties took part in the strenuous
task of governing the Borders. The border counties, Northumberland,
Cumberland, Westmorland and the Bishopric of Durham, formed a district
totally different from the rest of England. Scotland was a troublesome
neighbour, and the men of these counties were a hardy race, famed for
their soldier-like qualities and especially for their skill as scouts
and skirmishers. Then again these counties were exempted from taxation
on account of the Scots’ ravages and their own special burdens of
defence. Finally a state of lawlessness frequently prevailed, which in
peaceful times never even threatened the south. The Wardens of the
Marches were usually noblemen such as Lord Darcy, Lord Dacre, and the
Earl of Northumberland. The power entrusted to them was regarded with
much suspicion by the King, while it was quite insufficient to maintain
order. As early as 1522 a secret council, under the presidency of a
royal lieutenant, was organised on the Borders. In 1525 it was
re-organised and placed under the presidency of Henry’s natural son the
Duke of Richmond[108]. The powers of the Council naturally roused much
opposition in the north. Among Lord Darcy’s papers there is a draft of a
petition complaining of its authority. The petitioners protested their
loyalty, and declared their willingness to prove it against any
insinuations. Seeing that they were so loyal, and that the country was
quiet, with no rufflings as in the days of King Henry and King Edward,
“but both the titles and all lovings to God (joined) in your Grace,” the
petitioners begged they might be left under the ordinary jurisdiction of
the Westminster Courts, which extended all over the kingdom except in
the county palatine of Durham, instead of being at the mercy of the
members of the Council, who might call any man before them on the
slightest pretext. They complained that so long as things went well the
Council alone was praised, and if affairs went badly, wheresoever the
fault might be, the whole blame was laid on the gentlemen. Moreover, the
petition continued, the Council was composed of spiritual men, who were
not fit to judge murders and felonies, suppress sedition, or see to the
defence of the realm, “and as great clerks report, there is no manner of
state within this your realm that hath more need of reformation, nor to
be put under good government, than the spiritual men.” If this were
true, it was not meet that they should rule under the commission they
now possessed “for surely they and other spiritual men be sore moved
against all temporal men.” The petition ends with protestations of
loyalty, after which Darcy wrote in a note that the like commission had
been tried by “my Lady the King’s grandam,” and proved greatly to the
King’s disadvantage in stopping the lawful processes at Westminster
Hall. From this petition it appears that Darcy, and probably other
northern gentlemen, was ready to make use of the King’s anti-clerical
policy for his own ends, arguing, perhaps, that though he was as loyal a
son of the Church as any man, yet priests ought not to meddle in secular
matters[109]. This draft was drawn up in the year 1529, before any of
the acts aimed at the clergy had been passed, and before Darcy himself
had chosen his side in the struggle between King and Pope. It was
probably never presented.

Some such body as the Council of the North was absolutely necessary if
any approach to law and order was to be maintained on the Borders. In
proof of this it is only necessary to describe one case out of a dozen.
Humphry Lisle, whose father Sir William Lisle of Felton, had led a brief
but crowded career as a freebooter in 1527–8, was run down and condemned
to death with his father and most of their band in 1528, when he was
only thirteen. He subsequently confessed that he had assisted in an
attack on Newcastle gaol, by which nine persons were liberated; that he
had taken part in four cattle raids, the burning and spoiling of five
farms and villages, and four highway robberies; that he had helped to
capture a number of prisoners to be held to ransom, and had been present
at the murder of a priest[110]. His life was spared by the Earl of
Northumberland, who had captured and hanged his father, but Humphry was
sent to the Tower. In 1532 he was back on the Borders and a knight, but
almost immediately afterwards he was outlawed and fled to Scotland[111].

Careers of this sort being rather the rule than the exception on the
Borders, the office of Warden of the Marches called for a strong man.
But one could seldom be found, and the quarrels of the northern nobles
among themselves embroiled matters still further. The divisions of the
house of Percy, for instance, caused infinite trouble. The fifth Earl of
Northumberland, surnamed the Magnificent, died in 1527, leaving numerous
large debts. He had three sons by his wife Katherine, daughter and
heiress of Sir Robert Spencer[112]. The heir, Henry, born about 1503,
was feeble in body and, like all such men in that hurrying age, was
constantly the creature of those in power. From his earliest years he
was either led or bullied, first by his father and Cardinal Wolsey, in
whose household he was educated, later by Cromwell and Cromwell’s
dependent, Sir Reynold Carnaby. When Henry Percy was a page in the
Cardinal’s service the incident occurred by which he is best known, his
poor little love affair with Anne Boleyn. He seems to have offered to
marry her; but the King had already shown the maid of honour favour. The
Earl of Northumberland forbade his son to foster so dangerous a passion
and hastened on his marriage with the Lady Mary Talbot, daughter to the
Earl of Shrewsbury[113].

In 1527 Henry Percy became Earl of Northumberland, and on the fall of
Cardinal Wolsey he was freed from the man who had exercised most
influence over him. It is characteristic of Cromwell’s methods that he
worked the Earl as he wished by means of the young nobleman’s own
favourite, Sir Reynold Carnaby[114]. While this man retained his
position the King could rely on Northumberland, who was reputed to be
one of the most loyal of the peers. He was at one time in secret
communication with Chapuys, but this was probably a mere freak. Darcy
described him as “very light and hasty” and not to be trusted[115]. His
loyalty seems to have sprung from abject fear of Henry, and he probably
would have been glad enough of the King’s overthrow, though he would
rather die than venture to assist in it.

The Percy estates were rich, though burdened with debt, and the castles
were very strong. With them in his hands the King could keep the north
in subjection and even hope to abate the confusion on the Borders. But
if they were used against him by some capable commander, such as the
Earl’s brother, Sir Thomas Percy, the results were sure to be serious;
if foreign help were sent to the rebels, perhaps fatal. Cromwell, with
Sir Reynold Carnaby to forward his plans, saw the chance of enriching
the crown by the whole of the Percy lands. The Earl’s life was
uncertain; his marriage turned out unhappily and there was no prospect
of an heir; he was on bad terms with his brother Sir Thomas, and Carnaby
took care that he should not forget the quarrel[116]. It was not
surprising that the brothers should disagree, for Sir Thomas had all the
conspicuous vices and virtues of his race, which were completely absent
in the invalid Earl. An instance of their constant disputes occurred in
1532, when the Earl appointed Lord Ogle Deputy Warden of the Marches.
Ogle was allied to Carnaby, and Sir Thomas together with his younger
brother, Sir Ingram Percy, refused to recognise his authority and
forbade their tenants to do so. Sir Thomas issued proclamations
declaring that he was the true Warden, and Lord Ogle postponed his first
Warden’s court for fear that the brothers would break it up[117].

Sir Thomas on his side complained that the Earl had not given him the
lands left to him in his father’s will until he was on the eve of
marriage[118]. His wife was Eleanor, daughter and co-heiress to
Harbottle of Beamish; by her he had two sons, Thomas and Henry, and a
daughter. Their home was generally at Prudhoe Castle on the Tyne[119].

It does not appear that the breach between the brothers was irreparable
until about 1535, in which year the King gave the childless Earl licence
to appoint any one of the Percy name and blood heir to all his
lands[120]. But when Sir Thomas, his natural successor, was proposed,
the King raised objections[121]. The result was that in February 1535
the Earl made the King his sole heir, and an Act of Parliament was
passed “concerning the assurance of the possessions of the Earl of
Northumberland to the King’s Highness and his heirs[122].” Nothing could
have made the Earl more unpopular, and it was probably this alienation
of the family property rather than his personal extravagance and
inherited debts that earned him his surname “the Unthrifty.”[123] Sir
Thomas was provided for in the Act, but he could hardly be grateful for
a pension when he felt himself heir by right to an earldom and the
broadest lands in the north[124]. No appeal was possible when the King
gained by his loss. A petition which he sent to Cromwell in July 1535
shows his helplessness. In this he related how the lands at Corbridge so
tardily allowed him, which he “with great labour” had defended from the
Scots, had now been granted by his brother to Sir Reynold Carnaby. Sir
Thomas naturally refused to give them up, and went to remonstrate with
his brother in person. But he was not allowed even to see the Earl and
was rudely turned from his house. He concluded by begging that Carnaby
might be removed from the Earl’s service, as he was the cause of his
master’s quarrels with his wife, brothers and nearest relatives[125].
Cromwell was not likely to remove Carnaby from the place where he had
been of so much use; and it was Cromwell and Carnaby whom Sir Thomas
secretly denounced as the authors of his wrongs when he, with Sir
Ingram, swore to be revenged on the Earl’s favourite as “the destruction
of all our blood.”

Perhaps the most curious part of the whole matter is the Earl’s hatred
of his brother. The reason may lie in some long-forgotten offence, but
as far as can be known there were wrongs on both sides in their early
quarrels. Sir Thomas was the more deeply injured when his brother set
aside his claim and that of his young sons to inherit his lands; yet he
seems to have felt a kind of personal loyalty to the Earl as head of his
house, while the Earl constantly refused even to speak with his brother.
Easily swayed in most matters, he had all a weak man’s unreasoning
obstinacy when driven to desperation. To modern eyes he seems a
pathetically frail figure; but it was an age of strong men, and he
inspired more curses than pity then. Sir Thomas Percy was the darling of
the people, always sympathetic to the disinherited; he was the favourite
of his mother, the dowager countess, to whom he was much attached[126];
it was to him rather than to the Earl that the helpless appealed in
times of trouble[127]. Like his father, the Magnificent Earl, he
delighted in gorgeous array and warlike adventures[128]; he was fearless
and honest as Hotspur himself. But he was as lawless as the Border
thieves who were often his followers and allies. Feuds were still
pursued with great earnestness in the north, but his methods were rather
out of date. On the first opportunity he followed the rude old plan of
spoiling his enemy’s goods, laying waste his lands, and chasing him into
his fastnesses with blood-curdling threats.

Whatever may be thought of the Percys’ habits, they were no worse than
those of the Cliffords, the staunch supporters of the government. Henry
Clifford, first Earl of Cumberland, was the son of Henry Lord Clifford,
the “Shepherd Lord,” by his wife Anne, daughter of Sir John St John of
Bletsoe. The future Earl was born in 1493, and brought up with the sons
of Henry VII. He married first Margaret, daughter of the Earl of
Shrewsbury, and second another Margaret, daughter of the fifth Earl of
Northumberland, the Magnificent Earl; his second wife was the mother of
his children. In disposition the Earl of Cumberland resembled his
grandfather “the Butcher”—the Black Clifford of “Henry VI”—rather than
his father, “the Shepherd.” In his youth he was extravagant, and
supplied his need of money by robbery and violence[129]. After he
succeeded his father, he followed the same course of action. Several
cases were brought against his unruly servants in the Court of Star
Chamber[130]. The Earl himself was too great a man to be touched, and
the local courts were powerless to supply any remedy for his
aggressions. He was a hard landlord and well hated in his own county,
but he enjoyed the King’s favour without interruption, and his son
Henry, Lord Clifford, was permitted to marry Eleanor the daughter of the
Duke of Suffolk and Mary Tudor, the King’s sister, a somewhat dangerous
honour[131].

In 1534 the Earl of Cumberland accused Lord Dacre of high treason,
having seized his goods long before the trial. This was merely the last
move in a feud of some standing. Dacre was tried, but acquitted[132]. He
was the only nobleman acquitted on a charge of high treason during Henry
VIII’s reign; but he was heavily fined, which was presumably all that
the government wanted. It was, however, rather shortsighted policy, for
something between shame and suspicion prevented the King from employing
Dacre again. The Earl of Cumberland succeeded him in his office of
Warden of the Western Marches, but he was hampered in the execution of
his office both by his personal unpopularity and by the embittered feud
with the Dacres and their allies among the Cumberland gentlemen. The
Cliffords were the most powerful family on the western borders after the
disgrace of the Dacres. The Earl’s brother, Sir Thomas Clifford, was
deputy captain of Berwick-upon-Tweed[133]; the Earl’s illegitimate son
Thomas Clifford held the same office in Carlisle[134]. If the younger
Percys were in league with the mosstroopers of North Tynedale, so were
the Cliffords with the broken men of Esk and Line[135]. The thieves of
the Borders were used for or against the King simply as the noblemen who
bought their services pleased. It is necessary to bear this in mind in
order to understand the position not only of the King but also of his
opponents.

Southward from the Borders lay the county of Durham, always spoken of as
“the Bishopric.” For centuries it had enjoyed the privileges of a county
palatine within which the Bishop reigned supreme. But in 1535 all such
extraordinary jurisdictions were abolished, and Durham was reduced in
many respects to the rank of an ordinary shire[136]. Bishop Tunstall was
not a man who could in any circumstances have opposed such a King as
Henry VIII. He was timid, gentle and studious, and wins our affection by
the quiet persistence with which he refused to burn heretics. To their
shame be it said, his moderation irritated alike the Protestants and the
Romanists. He seems to have taken the change in his estate with perfect
equanimity, but the abolition of the ancient palatinate was resented by
the people of Durham, who had been used to pride themselves on their
position as “haliwerfolk,” the people of the holy man, St Cuthbert[137].

The Hiltons and the Lumleys were the principal families in Durham, and
their influence extended to the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which,
lying on the north bank of the Tyne, was a county in itself. In the
south of Durham the chief gentlemen were Conyers of Hornby and Bowes of
Streatlam near Barnard Castle on the Tees.

The Bowes family had acquired their estates by marriage with an heiress
of the house of Balliol early in the fourteenth century. After the fall
of Warwick the Kingmaker they became the chief family in the
neighbourhood. Old Sir Ralph Bowes, living in 1508, was sheriff of
Durham for twenty years. He married Margaret daughter of Sir Richard
Conyers; we are concerned with two of their large family, Richard the
fourth son who married Elizabeth daughter and co-heiress of Roger Aske
of Aske; and Robert, the third son, who married Alice daughter of Sir
James Metcalfe[138]. In 1511 Robert Bowes was mentioned as a suitable
bridegroom for Elizabeth Aske, aged seven, if his brother Richard should
die[139]. Failing the income to be derived from marriage with an
heiress, Robert became a lawyer[140], and no doubt made the acquaintance
of Robert Aske, William Stapleton, Thomas Moigne, and the other young
lawyers who played an important part in the rebellion. They were
carrying on the tradition of those lawyers of an earlier age, concerning
whom it is written:

  “We see at Westminster a cluster of men which deserves more attention
  than it receives from our unsympathetic, because legally uneducated
  historians. No, the clergy were not the only learned men in England,
  the only cultivated men, the only men of ideas. Vigorous intellectual
  effort was to be found outside the monasteries and universities. These
  lawyers are worldly men, not men of the sterile caste,—they marry and
  found families, some of which become as noble as any in the land; but
  they are in their way learned, cultivated men, linguists, logicians,
  tenacious disputants, true lovers of the nice case and the moot point.
  They are gregarious, clubable men, grouping themselves in hospices,
  which become schools of law, multiplying manuscripts, arguing,
  learning and teaching, the great mediators between life and logic, a
  reasoning, reasonable element in the English nation.”[141]

The attitude of these men—intelligent, well-educated, unlikely subjects
for wild hopes and popular enthusiasms—is one of the most striking
features of the rebellion. Robert Bowes, though probably one of the
youngest, was not the least brilliant, while, unlike the others, he came
through safely and even with credit. Norfolk said of him, “Bowes has no
equal in the north both for law and war.”[142] His appointment on the
Council of the North after the rising was the beginning of a long career
in the government service, during which he justified the Duke’s
estimate.

In the North Riding of Yorkshire the influence of the three northern
Earls was about equal.

Wilton, near the mouth of the Tees, was the seat of the Bulmers, who
were allied to all the neighbouring great families, the Hiltons, the
Evers, the Tempests. Sir William Bulmer of Wilton married Margery
daughter of Sir John Conyers, by whom he had three sons, John, Ralph and
William[143]. He was present at the battle of Flodden, where he
distinguished himself by attacking and routing with a much inferior
force the Scots troops under Lord Hume[144]. In November 1519 he was
summoned before the Court of Star Chamber on a charge of rioting,
together with Sir William Conyers and others[145]. The King presided in
person at the trial, and was very much enraged because it appeared from
the evidence that Sir William Bulmer “being the King’s servant sworn,
refused the King’s service and became servant to the Duke of
Buckingham.” Henry exclaimed “that he would none of his servants should
hang on another man’s sleeve, and that he was as well able to maintain
him as the Duke of Buckingham; and what might be thought by his
departing, and what might be supposed by the Duke’s retaining him, he
would not then declare.... The knight kneeled still on his knees crying
the King’s mercy, and never a nobleman there durst intreat for him, the
King was so highly displeased with him.”[146] Buckingham was as angry as
the King. He saw that he himself was in danger of imprisonment, and he
was afterwards accused of having sworn to stab the King to the heart if
the order was given to commit him to the Tower[147]. Sir William,
however, was pardoned[148], and in the following year his son, Sir John
Bulmer, served under the Earl of Surrey, afterwards Duke of Norfolk, in
Ireland[149].

On October 6, 1531, Sir William Bulmer made his will, a long, elaborate
document, full of tragic irony considering the later history of the
family. The gold chain weighing 100 pounds which was to be an heirloom
for the children of his eldest son must have disappeared into the King’s
coffers when that son was attainted; the chantry of St Ellen where four
poor bedesmen and one woman were to pray for ever for the founder’s soul
can only have stood a few years. The supervisors of the will were “my
especial good lord, my lord of Westmorland, my lord Conyers, and my son
Sir Thomas Tempest.”[150] Westmorland had married the Duke of
Buckingham’s daughter[151], and the Bulmers may have transferred their
allegiance to the Earl on the Duke’s execution. Sir William made his
three sons, who were all knighted by this time, his executors, but at
the end of the will he added another clause: “Also, as I have named my
son, Sir John Bulmer, to have been one of my executors, I will that he
be none of them, but he to suffer his two brothers lovingly to occupy
and minister all and every my goods favourably without any interruption
of him and he to have for his so doing and suffering £300 and my chain
and household stuff at Wilton, which before I have bequeathed him; and
in like manner he to suffer his brothers to have melling at my chantry
at Wilton, and to see the priests and bede men there to have that they
should have, and all other my servants, according as I have bequeathed
them.”[152]

Sir John Bulmer, the heir, married Anne daughter of Sir Ralph Bigod, and
their eldest son Ralph married before 1530 Anne daughter of Sir Thomas
Tempest[153]. On 11 June 1532 it was stated that Sir John was forty
years old and upwards[154]. Some examples have already been given of the
marriage customs which prevailed at that time. In the case of heirs and
heiresses, the contract was often drawn up while the parties concerned
were still in their cradles, and the marriage was consummated as early
as possible, before the young people acquired sufficient independence to
upset the arrangements of their guardians. Much of the domestic
unhappiness of the time may be traced to these child marriages,
concluded without any regard for the character and feelings of the
parties. It may be inferred that Sir John Bulmer’s was such a one, as
five of his six children were married before 1530[155], when he was not
much above forty years old. His conduct requires the excuse of this bad
custom. His father’s position in the service of the Duke of Buckingham
must have brought Sir John into contact with a girl named Margaret, who
is frequently described as the illegitimate daughter of Buckingham
himself[156]. But her son in 1584 stated that she was the illegitimate
daughter of Henry Stafford[157]; if he could have glozed over the stain
on her birth by the rank of her father he would probably have done so,
and it is safer to conclude that Henry Stafford was some relative of the
Duke. Margaret herself was “a very fair creature and a beautiful,” as
even her enemies were forced to confess[158]. She was married to William
Cheyne of London, but Sir John Bulmer bought her from her husband and
made her his mistress[159]. Two daughters were the offspring of this
connection, but about 1536 Lady Bulmer and William Cheyne[160] seem both
to have been dead and Sir John married Margaret. In January 1536–7 was
born their son John[161], afterwards John Bulmer of Pinchinthorpe, who
declared in 1584 that he was born in lawful matrimony[162]. The marriage
was recognised by Sir John’s relatives[163], which may indicate the low
state of morality in the north, or the power of Margaret’s charms, or
the existence of extenuating circumstances.

Sir Ralph Bulmer, one of Sir John’s brothers, married Anne, daughter and
co-heir of Roger Aske of Aske[164], and was thus brother-in-law to
Richard Bowes.

The other brother, Sir William Bulmer, was, like Sir John, unfortunate
in his matrimonial experience. His wife Elizabeth, daughter and heiress
of William Elmedon of Elmedon, Durham, was married to him in 1505, when
she was eleven years old and he probably not much older[165]. The
marriage turned out unhappily; Sir William squandered his own estates
and involved his wife’s by his extravagance, and the couple usually
lived apart[166]. It will be shown hereafter how the lady revenged
herself on her husband.

The Bigods of Settrington, though their seat near Malton was between
thirty and forty miles south of Wilton, were none the less neighbours of
the Bulmers, for they had both lands and influence on the north coast of
Yorkshire, especially about Whitby. This family might well seem to be
under a curse. Two Bigods, father and son, fell at Towton Field in
1461[167]; the son, Sir John Bigod, had married Elizabeth daughter of
Henry Lord Scrope of Bolton, and left a son, Ralph Bigod, who was thrice
married. His family seem to have been the children of his second wife,
Margaret, daughter of Sir Robert Constable of Flamborough[168] and aunt
of Lord Darcy’s friend Sir Robert Constable. One of these children,
Elizabeth, married Sir John Aske, of Aughton and was the grandmother of
Robert Aske[169]—another, Anne, married Sir John Bulmer[170].

Sir Ralph Bigod’s eldest son, Sir John Bigod, married Joan, daughter of
Sir James Strangeways[171]. He was probably killed at the battle of
Flodden in 1513[172], and his eldest son died with him in the war
against Scotland[173]. He left three children; Elizabeth, who was
afterwards the wife of Sir Stephen Hamerton[174], Francis, and Ralph.

Two years after Flodden old Sir Ralph Bigod died; his will was proved 7
April 1515. He made several charitable and religious bequests, and left
a yearly rent of £5 to his younger grandson Ralph[175], who died
unmarried in 1551[176]; but there is no mention of Francis who, at the
age of seven, was heir to his manor of Seton and all his lands in
various parts of Yorkshire[177]. The executors of the will were Agnes,
Sir Ralph’s third wife, Sir Ralph Evers, and Thomas and William
Constable of Settrington. The supervisor was Lord Darcy.

In 1529 Francis Bigod came of age and had livery of his lands; shortly
afterwards he was knighted[178]. Before his coming of age he had been in
the service of Cardinal Wolsey, and when, on coming into his estates, he
found himself in financial difficulties, he applied to his
fellow-servant, Thomas Cromwell, for assistance[179].

Sir Francis Bigod married Katherine, daughter of William, first Lord
Conyers, and in 1530 they had one daughter, Dorothy[180]. Their home was
at Mulgrave Castle in Blackmore, on the coast about three miles north of
Whitby. Sir Francis was made the Steward of Whitby Strand by the Earl of
Northumberland[181], and in the execution of this office he must soon
have come into conflict with the Abbot of Whitby, John Hexham or
Topcliffe, who began his career as a Canon of Hexham and became Abbot of
Whitby in 1527[182]. Some account of the Abbot’s doings may not be out
of place; they are not only interesting in themselves but also give a
most spirited picture of the more turbulent phases of life in a little
seaport town, and of the feuds and intrigues which agitated a great
monastery.

The first story is gathered from a fragment of a Star Chamber case; it
is undated, and the Abbot of Whitby may have been one of John Hexham’s
predecessors. This Abbot lodged a complaint against certain poor
mariners and artificers of the town of Whitby for making a riot. Only
the townsfolk’s side of the case remains. It had been the custom “tyme
out of mans remembrance” in Whitby and all the other haven towns
thereabouts, for the fishermen and mariners to keep the feasts of
Midsummer Even, St Peter’s Even, and St Thomas’ Even with the following
rites. “All maryners and masters of ships accompanied with other yong
peple have used to have carried before them on a staff half a tarbarell
brennyng and the maryners to follow two and two having such weapons in
their hands as they pleased to bring, and to sing through the streets to
resort to every bonefire and there to drink and make merry with songs
and other honest pastimes.”

But one St Peter’s Even (31 July) as they went singing through the
streets “entending no harm nor displeasure to the said Abbot” and “being
in good peace of our sovereign lord the King,” about twenty of the
Abbot’s servants set upon the merrymakers and “did shamefully and
cruelly beat and hurt” divers of them. They thought this must be by the
Abbot’s command, though, as they declared, he had no cause to use them
so. When they complained to him, he assured them he knew nothing of the
matter, which was not of his will, and asked them all to come up to the
Abbey on St Thomas’ Even (20 December) “and there he would give to them
half a barrel of beer to drink and make good cheer.” But when on the
appointed evening they came singing through the town and began to go up
the “great hill having a very narrow way towards the said Abbey,” the
Abbot’s servants from the top of the hill “riotously cast down a great
number of great stones as much as they could lift” upon the mariners.
They “entreated in good and gentle manner the said servants of the Abbot
to keep the King’s peace and cease their strokes,” and seeing they were
not welcome, they turned back to a friend’s house, to help him with his
bonfire and brood upon the lost half-barrel of beer. Here their enemies
attacked them again. The cautious mariners admitted that some of the
Abbot’s servants might have been hurt in the second fray. Some of the
mariners themselves certainly were injured. The defence ends with the
usual protestation that the defendants had done nothing wrong, and in
any case had a pardon for it[183].

In 1528 it was the Abbot of Whitby, John Hexham, who had to defend
himself in the Star Chamber. He was accused of being in league with
William and John Loder, two French pirates, who on 10 July 1528 seized a
Dantzig vessel, the “Jesus,” Hans Ganth master, while she lay in the
Humber, took her to Whitby, and there sold her to the Abbot, John
Conyers, Gregory Conyers, John Ledam and John Pecock, who bought her
“perfectly knowing the same ship and goods to be the proper goods of
your suppliant,” and who refused to give her up when claimed by her
rightful owners[184]. The Abbot’s defence is lost, and he may have been
able to clear himself, but the circumstances look awkward. Gregory
Conyers, of whom more will be heard, was the servant and close ally of
the Abbot. It is uncertain how he was related to the great family of
Conyers to which Sir Francis Bigod’s wife belonged, but there is no
doubt about the deadly feud which he waged with Sir Francis until he
hunted his enemy to death. In 1536 the Abbot of Whitby accused Sir
Francis of a great riot committed against the convent of Whitby, and in
revenge Bigod and his servants quarrelled with Gregory Conyers and other
servants of the Abbot at Whitby Fair on 25 August, St Hilda’s Day, and
would have killed him had not some of the other gentlemen
interfered[185]. The Abbot begged that Conyers and Bigod might be
reconciled, but naturally no formal reconciliation had any effect. As in
the matter of the piracy we do not know the Abbot’s defence, so in this
case we do not know Bigod’s, but it is certain that Sir Francis was in
debt to the Abbot, which would probably aggravate the young knight still
further, whatever the original rights and wrongs may have been.

In 1535 Sir Francis Bigod by persuasion or threats induced Abbot Hexham
to resign his office to his young kinsman, William Newton, a monk of
Whitby. This did not at all suit Gregory Conyers or the other monks, and
they insisted that he must withdraw his resignation. Both sides appealed
to Cromwell, to whom Bigod wrote on 7 January 1535–6 that “the monks
watch him (the Abbot) like crows about a carrion, and will not suffer
the monk (Newton) or me to speak with him alone.”[186] Cromwell, as
usual, was ready to settle the matter in favour of the highest bidder,
who in this case seems to have been the Abbot[187]. Sir Francis was
examined in Hilary term and warned to trouble the monks no more.
Nevertheless on 19 June 1536 the Abbot wrote to Cromwell to ask that
Bigod might not occupy the office of under-steward, or, if he must
surrender it to him, that the condition might be made “that he make no
use of it to revenge himself on us, as we hear he intends.... If Sir
Francis occupy that office, and James Conyers the bailiwick, the two
being so maliciously bent against us, we shall be brought into continual
trouble. The bailly is a very uncharitable and angry man, and so aged
that he is almost past reason.”[188]

Bigod was better educated than most men of his age. He had spent some
time at Oxford, and although he did not take a degree he was something
of a scholar. He had leanings towards the reformers; his first book was
an attack on the monasteries, and he corresponded with Bale, Latimer,
and other advanced thinkers[189]. In June 1535 he was employed in taking
down to the northern bishops the King’s letters of admonition for the
declaration of his title as Supreme Head of the Church of England[190],
and he reported the pains that he took to see that the statute was
“preached sincerely” and understood by the people. At the same time he
informed Cromwell of the suspicion he entertained concerning the loyalty
of the monks of Mountgrace Priory, and he procured the arrest of a
“traitorous monk” at Jervaux, who saw visions of St Anne[191]. This man
was executed at the next York Assizes, for which it is hard to forgive
Sir Francis, as the evidence against the monk was very slight[192].

In 1536 Bigod wrote to Cromwell about two priests and a man named
Anthony Heron, whom he had caused to be imprisoned at York for their
Popish opinions. The letter incidentally reveals the horrible state of
York prison; Sir Francis observes that as Anthony Heron was walking in
the yard in the open air, he was able to speak longer with him than with
the priests who were within. He showed some humanity, however, by giving
alms to his prisoners, and he tried to obtain their release as soon as
he was convinced that they repented of their errors[193]. Later in the
year he wrote a very curious letter to Cromwell, which throws much light
on his character. He begged that he might be given a licence to preach,
or, if that was impossible, that he might become a priest, in order to
utter the truth to the ignorant people of the north[194]. Yet he was now
a married man with children!

Sir Francis Bigod appeared to have been in every way a convinced
supporter of Cromwell’s policy; by birth, by interest, by conviction he
was not merely inclined to acquiesce passively, but to promote actively
“the innovations.” How did such a man come to die a traitor’s death?
Froude curtly dismisses him as a fool and a pedant, but such a summary
judgment does not dispose of a peculiar character. It may be more just
to look upon Sir Francis as a portent of a rising power,—in short, as
the first of the Puritans. He hated the Church of Rome, but he hated
equally the Erastianism of Henry and Cromwell; what he sought was the
Presbytery, and had he been gifted with genius, he might have been the
forerunner of Calvin and Knox. Religious liberty was as intolerable to
his exact, legal mind, as it was to most of his contemporaries; he must
have church, priesthood, dogma, all down in black and white, and all
distinct from the state. When it came to choosing between church and
state, any church, even a thoroughly bad one, seemed to him better than
a purely state religion. Born out of his time, with no power to mould
the time to his needs, his baffling figure shows half-seen among the
more strenuous leaders of revolt, perplexing others because he was
himself perplexed.

Passing southward down the coast from Whitby, we find that the next
great family was that of Evers. Young Sir Ralph Evers was the keeper of
the King’s castle of Scarborough. Later the family was raised to the
baronage, but at this time they were not so influential as their
neighbours, the Constables of Flamborough.

Sir Marmaduke Constable, surnamed the Little, was the head of this house
from 1488 to 1518. He served under two kings in France, and won fame on
the Scots Marches. His wife was Joyse, daughter of Sir Humphry Stafford
of Grafton; by her he had four sons, Robert, Marmaduke, William, and
John, and two daughters, Agnes and Eleanor[195]. Agnes’ second husband
was Sir William Percy, the Earl of Northumberland’s uncle.

Robert, Little Sir Marmaduke’s son and heir, was born about 1478. He
seems to have spent a wild youth before he succeeded to his estates. The
minster of Beverley was held in great veneration, having been founded by
the local saint, St John of Beverley. It enjoyed many privileges, and
the neighbouring gentlemen were quite in the habit of having feuds about
their places in the procession on St John’s Day (25 October)[196]. One
of these privileges was “granted ... unto the church of Beverley by Our
Holy Father the Pope of old time and since many times confirmed, that
whosoever doth infringe or break or interrupt any liberties of the
church of Beverley he is on so doing accurst without any further
sentence of any judge.” This was no mere nominal power, but had been
executed on “divers transgressors.” An unknown accuser addressed Sir
Robert Constable thus: “You yourself in times past, violating and
breaking the said liberties by your hunting there, and knowing yourself
to have fallen into the sentence of excommunication for so doing, did
resort to the Archbishop of York then being, to be absolved thereof, and
so as you have reported were also absolved.”[197] But more serious
charges can also be brought against him. Froude says, “he was a bad,
violent man. In earlier years he had carried off a ward in Chancery,
Anne Grysanis, while still a child, and attempted to marry her by force
to one of his retainers.”[198]

Whatever his early shortcomings, Robert Constable was ready to fight for
the King on the first opportunity. In 1497, when the Cornishmen rose and
marched on London, he was with the royal army, and so distinguished
himself at Blackheath that he was knighted on the field of battle. He
married Jane, daughter of Sir William Ingleby[199]. In 1511 he sailed
with Lord Darcy’s expedition to Spain[200].

At Flodden Field Sir Marmaduke Constable appeared surrounded by his
“seemly sons.”[201] Accounts of the battle give no details of their part
of the fighting, but two of Sir Robert’s brothers, Marmaduke and
William, and William Percy, who fought beside them with the tenants of
the Earl of Northumberland, were all knighted by the Earl of Surrey
after the day was won[202].

Sir Robert Constable was Knight of the Body to Henry VIII[203], and he
was in attendance on the King at a gorgeous banquet at Greenwich in
1517[204]. But the following year Sir Marmaduke the Little died, and his
son Robert succeeded to his lands and position. Sir Marmaduke’s
tombstone is still to be seen in Flamborough church, the inscription is
an irregular ballad on the vanity of earthly honours, telling of his
battles and prowess, with the refrain:

         “But now, as ye see, he lieth under this stone.”[205]

A more terrible fate awaited his son.

When Lord Darcy resigned his offices as steward of the lordship and
constable of the castle of Sheriffhutton, in 1520, they were bestowed on
his friend Sir Robert Constable. Darcy bade his servant in charge
deliver the castle and all within it to his “brother,” the new
constable, and to “do this favourable and lovingly.”[206] About the same
time the hand of Elizabeth, the only child of Darcy’s second marriage,
was given to Sir Robert’s eldest son Marmaduke. Darcy told his steward
to hasten the payment of her dowry to Sir Robert, on account of his
“dangerous” disposition[207]. He must have meant that his friend was
hasty tempered, and there is abundant evidence that Sir Robert was
fierce and quarrelsome.

The Earl of Surrey (afterwards Duke of Norfolk), who was sent to the
north in 1523 to inspect the administration of justice, described to
Wolsey how, while sitting with the justices of York, he “found the
greatest dissensions here among the gentlemen, who would have fought
together if they had met.” By the advice of the judges he sent for all
the parties, and insisted on a promise that they would compose their
disputes and keep the peace. Among the rest, Sir Robert Constable and
his adherents were almost at war with young Sir Ralph Ellerker and Sir
John Constable of Holderness[208]. The latter may have been Sir Robert’s
younger brother, but was more probably a cousin.

In 1533 Sir Robert Constable’s differences with his brother-in-law, Sir
William Percy, developed into a Star Chamber case. The feud was a
long-standing affair, in spite of the intermarriage, which may have been
a fruitless effort to put an end to the ill-will. It was well known in
the county of York that the families had been in great displeasure with
one another, even before the death of the late Earl of Northumberland.
Sir William Percy presented before the Court a list of accusations
against Sir Robert, beginning with a string of petty wrongs about
pasture and impounding cattle, through which he worked up to the chief
quarrel. This began in a quaint manner. A traveller picked up a buckler
on the King’s highway, and sold it to one of Percy’s servants, Simon
Banister, called Simon Burdythe. Simon wore the buckler at Driffield
Assizes, where Christopher Constable, one of Sir Robert’s nephews,
claimed it as his own. Banister refused to give it up, though Sir
Robert, who had given it to his nephew, offered to identify it. After
this the servants of the two houses never met without quarrelling. If
Italians were as touchy as Englishmen, the feud of the Montagues and the
Capulets is certainly no exaggeration, as this story proves. The affair
came to a definite issue in March 1534, when the Justices of Assize were
sitting at York and the rival families were both in the city in full
strength. After preliminary abuse and violence in a tavern, Banister,
who had offered considerable provocation, and a party of his
fellowservants were attacked by the Constables in the street. Banister
was slain in the fray, and several were wounded on both sides, including
Sir Robert Constable’s son Thomas. After some scattered street fighting,
the Constables escaped through a friend’s house into the White Friars
and there took sanctuary. They were presently removed to the town gaol,
where all their kinsmen and allies flocked to visit them. Public
sympathy was on their side, but it had been obtained, said Sir William
Percy, by bribes to the mayor and citizens. The coroner was so corrupted
that a murder could not be found against them, and the high sheriff was
no more incorruptible, for when he appointed a jury to inquire into the
case, most of the men on it were kinsmen of the Constables and the rest
had seen the colour of their money. Unless the King could find a remedy,
the murder and mayhems were like to go unpunished: so Sir William Percy
concluded his case. The details of Sir Robert’s defence, which has for
once been preserved, are too long for repetition here. His accuser
himself admitted that Sir Robert took no part in the fray, and it was
not proved that he had inspired it[209]. But the principals were equally
to blame for encouraging the quarrels of their kinsmen and servants,
instead of putting an end to the dispute at the very beginning.

In 1535 Sir Robert Constable was more respectably engaged in befriending
the widowed Lady Rokeby against their common opponent Gervase
Cawood[210]. This dispute probably brought him into displeasure with
Robert Aske, as Cawood was Aske’s friend and acted as his secretary
during the rebellion[211].

Among the ghosts of the records—the names without men—Sir Robert
Constable stands out as a substantial figure; he was a worthy head of a
warlike house, fierce and reckless, versed in the ways of war and of
courts, full of the wild, independent spirit of the north, but none the
less a true son of the Church (in spite of all lapses), a strong and
just ruler, above all a good enemy, and a better friend, true to his
motto, “Soyes Ferme.”

Young Sir Ralph Ellerker of Risby, with whom Sir Robert Constable was at
feud, was one of the captains of Hull, his father, old Sir Ralph
Ellerker, being the other. It was no wonder that the Constables and the
Ellerkers quarrelled, for they were the most influential families in the
sea-board districts of the East Riding. Old Sir Ralph Ellerker also
contended with the Archbishop of York for supremacy in Beverley. In May
and June 1535 there was trouble over the appointment of the Twelve Men
of Beverley, who were the aldermen of the town. The burgesses themselves
had very little to do with the matter, and on this occasion the
Archbishop appointed one body of twelve and old Sir Ralph Ellerker
another. It is not easy to discover which side had the popular sympathy
in the contest which followed, but as the people of Beverley always
opposed the Archbishop on principle, they probably supported Sir Ralph’s
selection. On 30 November 1535 an order was made in the Court of Star
Chamber for the government of Beverley. It was a triumph for the
Archbishop. Old Sir Ralph Ellerker and certain of his adherents were
prohibited from ever again seeking election to places among the Twelve
Men, and an injunction was sent to him never to meddle again in the
matter on pain of a fine of five hundred marks[212].

The Askes of Aughton on the Derwent were friends and allies of the
Ellerkers. They had long been settled in the county, but were rather
esteemed for piety and quiet respectability than noted for any brilliant
qualities. The founder of the family was Richard, a cadet of the Askes
of Aske[213]. He married the heiress of Aughton, and in 1363 built and
endowed the chantry at Howden which bore his name. A love of building
and beautifying seems to have run in the family. Nothing remains now of
the manor house at Aughton but the site surrounded by traces of a
moat[214]; in 1584 the house had stained-glass windows, in which were
blazoned twenty-six shields of the arms of the Askes and their
relations[215]. From Richard Aske sprang a flourishing branch of the
family tree, which begins to concern us in 1497, when Sir Robert Aske,
the eldest son of Sir John Aske and Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Ralph
Bigod, succeeded to Aughton on the death of his father[216]. Sir
Robert’s two elder sons, John and Christopher, were born before that
date, for their grandfather bequeathed a gold spoon to John and a horse
to his brother,—though neither was much more than three years old[217].
Sir Robert’s wife was Elizabeth, daughter of John Lord Clifford[218].
Probably they were married after 1485, when her brother, the “shepherd
lord,” was restored to his lands and titles. Her children were thus the
first cousins of the Earl of Cumberland. Nine of these children survived
their parents—three sons and six daughters.

Early in 1507 Sir Robert Aske’s sister Dame Katherine, widow of Sir John
Hastings of Fenwick, died at her brother’s house at Aughton and was
buried among the Askes in Aughton Church. She was childless and
bequeathed most of her worldly possessions to her own kin. To her
sisters and nieces she left beads of coral and white jasper, “hooks of
silver and gilt,” and other bits of finery; her best gowns of velvet,
black damask and tawny chamlet were to become altar cloths in certain
churches; but for each of her kinsmen she had made a shirt, and among
these fortunate legatees Robert Aske is mentioned for the first
time[219]. Dame Katherine’s brother-in-law, Sir George Hastings, the
father of Sir Brian Hastings, who was to be sheriff of Yorkshire in
1536, refused to give up her money to Sir Robert Aske, her
executor[220].

The children of Sir Robert Aske may be treated in some detail, less
because his third son Robert was the captain of the Pilgrimage, than
because they are good examples of ordinary men and women of their class.
Though their share in the rising was nothing compared to their
brother’s, their history shows how a great event affected private lives
in the days when a change of ministry could only be forced on the
government by an effective appeal to arms. Julian, the eldest daughter,
married Thomas Portington of Sawcliff, Lincolnshire[221]; when those of
her Yorkshire nephews who were studying the law set out for London after
their vacations, they spent the first night of their journey under her
roof[222]. Anne, the second daughter, seems to have married slightly
below her station, for her husband, Thomas Monkton, was the constant
companion of her brother Robert, and seems to have acted as a kind of
superior servant[223]. At a time when compromising letters might fall
into an enemy’s hands, men naturally entrusted the most important parts
of their communications verbally to a messenger; consequently it was
necessary to have reliable servants, bound by the strongest ties to keep
faith with their master; poor relations were often put to this use, with
varying degrees of success. This reason for the constant use of credence
applied more to noblemen such as Darcy and Cumberland than to private
gentlemen, but another motive for it was the fact that many of the
Yorkshire gentry could write and read very little[224]. Private affairs,
which seemed to them very difficult to express in writing, could easily
be explained by an intelligent servant, and as a servant had to carry
every message, he might as well communicate it by word of mouth. The
result of this was the habit, so irritating to the historian, of sending
the very kernel of the message by credence, with the consequence that it
is now lost for ever.

Agnes Aske formed an important alliance by her marriage with William
Ellerker, one of old Sir Ralph’s younger sons. The Ellerkers always
contrived to maintain an appearance of loyalty, and they rose when the
fortunes of the Askes declined. Margaret Aske married Sir Robert
Bellingham, a Cumberland knight about whom little is known.

John Aske, Sir Robert Aske’s eldest son, succeeded his father in
1531[225]. His wife was Eleanor, daughter of Sir Ralph Ryther, and in
1530 he had a family of five sons and three daughters[226]. His eldest
son Robert was a law student in 1536, but he was destined never to be
lord of Aughton, and died before his father in 1542[227]. John Aske
suffered from ill-health, which was probably the reason why he was never
knighted. Like most country gentlemen he had only two ideas—his lands
and his family. He was indifferent to the Reformation, as it did not
injure either of these objects, but he strongly disapproved of the
rebellion which endangered both. His brother’s sympathy for the
monasteries did not affect him; on the contrary he took advantage of
their fall to consolidate his Yorkshire estates, and in 1541 exchanged
certain manors which he owned in Sussex for the priories of Ellerton and
Thicket and other church lands in Yorkshire[228].

Christopher Aske, Sir Robert’s second son, was only a year or two
younger than John[229]. He was in the household of his cousin, the Earl
of Cumberland, with whom he was in high favour. His will, dated 1538,
gives a pleasant picture of the easy bachelor life of a cultured
gentleman. His room in Skipton Castle was well furnished with books on
genealogy, the Scriptures, and the noble art of hunting, as well as
French romances; while in his room at the “new lodge,” the building of
which he was superintending for the Earl, was his “cloth of the great
mappa mundi” and a tapestry embroidered with the history of St Eustace.
The chase, like the right to bear arms, was the special privilege and
study of the gentry; his horses, his falcons, his “best beagle called
Oliver” were worthy of his most honoured friends, his noble cousins the
Earl and Countess. He bequeathed keepsakes to all his family, and
mentions his black velvet gown, richly furred, and his gold chain and
crucifix. Most of the Askes were short-lived, and Christopher died in
1539, willing a priest to pray for his soul for seven years, and also
for the souls of all his “benefactors and predecessors,” especially
certain of his dead friends[230]; among these was one of the Hamertons.
Sir Stephen Hamerton, his friend and fellow in the Earl’s service, had
died a traitor’s death little more than a year before[231]. Christopher
Aske’s sister Dorothy had married Richard Green of Newbury, and
Christopher bequeathed “to my brother Greene my falcon in his keeping,
and to my sister his wife a silver spoon of the Apostles.”[232] Green
was also in Cumberland’s service, and it must be frankly admitted of his
followers that if

                    “On Sundays they were good,
                    On week-days they were minions.”

The Earl of Cumberland was at feud with John Norton of Norton. The
quarrel seems to have begun with some dispute about the manor of
Rylston, which Norton held in right of his wife. At some time in 1528 a
band of the Earl’s servants broke into the warren at Rylston and hunted
Norton’s deer. They beat and shot arrows at two keepers who dared to
oppose them, and carried off one of them to Skipton Castle, where he was
imprisoned for two months. The other keeper was afraid to stay in that
part of the country and fled because his life was threatened in the
Earl’s name. As to the deer park, no one dared to go near it but
Cumberland’s servants, who hunted there at will; the chief among them
was called by John Norton “Richard Grame,” but possibly this is a
misspelling of “Richard Green.” Norton took his complaint to the Court
of Star Chamber because “the said Erle is a noble man and of great
possessions gretly alied with the most parte of the noble men of ȝt
Cuntry and your seid subiect (John Norton) a pore man and of small power
and not abell to meynteyn his sute nor the tryall of the trouth in the
premisses by the common law in the same cuntie for the records of his
damage.”[233] Two years later he was obliged to resort to the Star
Chamber again. John Norton had farmed in the most legal manner the
lordship of Kirkby Malzeard in Netherdale, where it was agreed that he
should hold the manor court. But on the day of the first court (17 April
1531) Christopher Aske and Richard Green, at the head of about sixty
armed servants of the Earl’s, appeared at the place where the court was
held and declared that the Earl would have all rule within the lordship
and that any man who attended a court which the Earl had not appointed
would do so at his peril. After breaking up the court, they carried away
the court rolls[234]. Unfortunately it is impossible to discover how
this case ended, but the Earl and his servants certainly did not mend
their ways.

In 1535 John Proctor, whose offence against the Earl is not known, was
carried off and imprisoned in Skipton Castle, while “his goods were
spoyled destroyed and lost by brute beasts, and also not so contentyd
but they drove away his cattle and beasts.”[235] In this case the Earl
seems to have sent inferior servants; only a really serious piece of
lawlessness, such as stealing the court rolls, called for the presence
of gentlemen. Thomas Blackborne, who was the chief defendant against
Proctor, must have been some relation to William Blackborne, the vicar
of Skipton, to whom Christopher Aske left in his will a horse rejoicing
in the name of Grey Hodgeson[236].

Christopher Aske’s friendship with Sir Stephen Hamerton involved him in
a very curious affair. Sir Stephen’s mother, Dame Elizabeth Hamerton,
after the death of John Hamerton her first husband, married again; her
second husband, Edward Stanley brother to Lord Monteagle, had carried
his father’s banner at Flodden. He was lame, perhaps from wounds
received there, and seems to have expected to provide for a comfortable
old age by his marriage, for Dame Elizabeth, as he said, was enfeoffed
of Hellifield Peel. Unfortunately his wife did not agree with him.
Hellifield had always belonged to the Hamerton family, and it is
difficult to see how Dame Elizabeth could have had more than a life
interest in it. In September 1536, when Stanley rode home after a visit
to his brother, he found the door of the Peel barred against him. His
wife, who was watching his approach, ordered stones to be thrown down
from the upper windows, and one struck his servant’s horse. Having made
it plain that he was not welcome, “she dared him to enter her son Sir
Stephen’s house and bade him go to the Earl of Cumberland.” Not knowing
what to do he obeyed her, though as he believed her son and Christopher
Aske to have counselled his wife to defy him, he had little hope of help
there. The Earl refused to interfere. By this time the rebellion had
broken out, and Stanley, seeing that resistance was useless, entered
into a bond with Hamerton and Aske by which he undertook to leave his
wife in undisturbed possession of Hellifield during her life, while she
allowed him a share in the rents. After Sir Stephen Hamerton’s execution
Stanley petitioned Cromwell that he might have the Peel granted to him,
but his petition had no effect[237]. In 1538 Christopher Aske bequeathed
his goods at Hellifield Peel, after the death of Dame Elizabeth, to
Roger Hamerton, one of Sir Stephen’s nephews[238]; Sir Stephen’s only
son had died of grief after his father’s execution[239].

In spite of his lawless exploits, Christopher Aske was a gentleman,—the
English gentleman of Henry VIII’s reign. It is he, rather than the timid
and colourless John, rather than Robert, who was too ardent and too
honest for success, who seems to embody the very spirit of his age. He
wrote a dashing account of his fortunes during the rebellion[240], and
in it he is revealed, brave, clever, well-educated, faithful to his
cousin, a lover of gallant and daring adventures, and, as became a man
when Cromwell ruled England, worldly, unscrupulous, a believer in
blowing his own trumpet. He evidently inherited the family love of
bricks and mortar. Not only did he supervise the Earl of Cumberland’s
new buildings at Skipton, but he added to Aughton Church a tower in
Perpendicular style, adorned with shields bearing the Aske quarterings
and his own rebus[241]. One inscription on this tower rouses a curiosity
that can never be satisfied. It is in black letter and runs as follows:
“Christofer le second fitz de Robart Ask ch’r oblier ne doy Ao Di
1536.”[242] No one can tell what may be implied by the words. Perhaps
they quaintly express the gratitude of the steeple itself to the man who
built it, or “oblier ne doy” may be the motto of the Askes, fitly placed
above the church where they lie; or are the words a memorial of that
Aske who does not lie among his kinsfolk? Whatever they meant so long
ago, to those who know the story of the Pilgrimage of Grace they will
always speak of Robert Aske and the year in which he triumphed and
failed.

Robert Aske, the youngest of the three sons[243], was born about the
beginning of the century. From his father’s will it appears that an
estate at Empshot in Hampshire had been settled on him for the term
of his life[244]. This property must have been valuable, as he paid
a yearly rent of £8 to his brother John, and was in good
circumstances[245]. Part of his early life was spent in the service
of the Earl of Northumberland[246], which he probably entered
through the influence of the Countess of Cumberland, the Earl’s
sister. He was with Northumberland in 1527, the year in which he was
admitted at Gray’s Inn[247]. He must have left the Earl some years
before the rebellion, as there is no reference during it to the fact
that he had been one of the Earl’s followers, while it is quite
clear that he was a practising barrister. His enemies called him “a
common pedlar in the law,”[248] and though he had studied to other
purposes besides making money, he speaks of his “great businesses”
in London. He had the lawyer’s gift of words—the “filed tongue” that
wins the heart of lord and commoner alike; even in his answers and
manifestos, written in times of stress, on horseback or in prison,
and couched in a language now so changed, there are many passages
that stir the heart. While the conservative lords were in
correspondence with the Emperor’s ambassador, the commons binding
themselves by secret oaths, and the most steadfast of the religious
dying on the gallows, things must have passed among the young
lawyers of the Inns of Court that had much to do with the Pilgrimage
of Grace; but Aske, Moigne, Stapleton, even Bowes, kept their
counsel, and nothing more of their secrets will ever be known.

The home of Robert Aske was always his brother’s house at Aughton, where
he was born and brought up, but he spent much of his vacation visiting
his sisters and other friends in Yorkshire. In 1536 he was about five
and thirty years of age and unmarried, although even younger sons
generally found wives long before that time of life. Marriage in those
days had very little to do with favour, otherwise Aske’s confirmed
bachelorhood might be attributed to the plainness of his personal
appearance. The Court chronicler, Hall, declared in an outburst of loyal
indignation that “there lived not a verier wretch as well in person as
in conditions and deeds,”[249] and this hostile testimony is to some
degree confirmed by the fact that Aske had only one eye. Sir Francis
Brian during the insurrection protested his loyalty to the King in these
words, “I know him (Aske) not, nor he me, but I am true and he a false
wretch, yet we two have but two yene; a mischief put out his
t’other!”[250] Whatever his personal disadvantages, he was certainly a
man of great physical strength, able to spend day after day in the
saddle with little time for food or sleep. It is not necessary to
describe his character in detail. In the following pages his own words
and actions shall speak for themselves.

The attitude of the northern gentlemen to the Church is one of the
greatest interest. It was love of the monasteries which caused them so
far to forget their fear of the lower classes that they made common
cause with their tenants on behalf of the monks. One result of the
immense influence of the Church was that priests were continually
involved in the quarrels of laymen. In the complicated case of Sir
Richard Tempest and the vicar of Halifax, Tempest, a supporter of the
old religion, accused his enemy the vicar of treasonable practices, and,
when the rebellion broke out, forced him to fly to the King. This is a
chapter of digressions, and at the cost of another we will relate the
story, which at least gives a picture of the manners of the times.

Sir Richard Tempest was the King’s steward of Wakefield. His feud with a
neighbour, Sir Henry Saville, led to an almost endless string of Star
Chamber cases, as one or other of them was constantly oppressing the
unfortunate inhabitants of that town[251]. Robert Holdesworth, the
wealthy and influential vicar of Halifax, was Sir Henry Saville’s
staunch ally. He was in trouble with the government in 1535, but he
obtained a free pardon, and boasted that he had “cast such a flower into
the Queen’s lap,” that he would be heard as soon as Sir Richard
Tempest[252]. He had scarcely returned to Yorkshire, when the judges of
assize were informed that he had found £300 in the wall of an old house
which he was rebuilding at Blackley, co. Worcester, another of his
benefices[253]. Meanwhile Sir Richard Tempest was still busy against
him. Sir Richard had assisted in arresting the vicar when he was sent to
London, and on his triumphant return Holdesworth delivered to Tempest
and his supporters injunctions to keep the peace and not to burn his
house under penalty of 500 marks. In revenge for these injunctions,
which they regarded as an insult, certain of his parishioners who
belonged to Tempest’s party drew up a petition accusing the vicar of
being a fomenter of quarrels in the parish, and also charging him with
neglect of his duties, with false returns about his tenths and
firstfruits, and with an attempt to sell his lands, implying that he did
this with a view to flight. This petition was presented to Sir Richard
Tempest, who caused about a hundred persons to sign it, and sent it to
Cromwell with a letter warning him that Holdesworth and others of the
spiritualty had “full hollow hearts” towards him[254]. Tempest enclosed
a further accusation, from which it appeared that the vicar had said he
had lost 80 marks in mortuaries taken by the King from that one
benefice, and that if the King reigned much longer he would take all
from the Church. Holdesworth had also repeated a sort of proverb, “A pon
Herre all Yngland mey werre” (upon Harry all England may war?)[255].

Sir Richard Tempest’s letter was written on 28 September 1535. At the
York Assizes in March 1536[256] Holdesworth was accused of shameful and
treasonable words, “for which, if true, he deserves imprisonment for
life.”[257] While the vicar was away defending himself against this
charge, John Lacy, Sir Richard Tempest’s son-in-law, raided the vicarage
and carried off all the cattle and spoil he could find[258]. The vicar
must have been acquitted, for in April he returned to his plundered
vicarage, bringing with him over £800 of money. Part of this may have
been treasure trove, but some at least was his own savings[259]. To keep
this treasure, all in gold, safe from his enemies, he determined to bury
it. He put the money into “a brass pot with little short feet,” in which
he also placed a little box containing a strip of parchment with the
amount written on it. In the hall of the vicarage, under the stairs, was
a patch of naked earth, and here the vicar dug a hole just deep enough
to hide the brim of the pot when the earth was put back and stamped
down. Then he heaped firewood over the place, and shortly afterwards
left for London. He had some cause for anxiety as several people were in
the secret, his sister and her son, who had helped him to bury the
treasure, his parish priest, Alexander Emett, and his friend Sir Henry
Saville[260]. The fortunes of the brass pot during the rebellion will be
afterwards related. The point to be noticed here is that to some of the
gentlemen private feuds were of more importance than any question of
religion. The vicar of Halifax and Sir Richard Tempest were both opposed
to Cromwell’s policy, but no political sympathy could bring them to take
the same side.

When the influence of the religious was exercised against the government
it produced great results, as in the following case. The Stapletons of
Wighill, near Tadcaster, were a family of position, followers of the
Earl of Northumberland. Christopher Stapleton, the head of the family,
was a chronic invalid, who passed the summer of 1535 at Beverley, for
the sake of his health. He stayed in the house of the Grey Friars, and
there he met Thomas Johnson, otherwise called Brother Bonaventure, one
of the Observant Friars, who had been sent from York to Beverley when
the houses of the Order were made conventual. The friar easily acquired
influence over the sick man and his childless wife, and when they went
home to Wighill he visited them there[261]. Next summer, 1536,
Christopher came to Beverley again, bringing with him Sir Brian
Stapleton, his eldest son by his first wife[262], and his brother
William Stapleton. William, Christopher’s brother, was a lawyer of
Gray’s Inn, and a friend of Robert Aske; he spent his vacation with his
brother, and at the beginning of October, when he was about to return to
London for the Michaelmas term, Beverley became the headquarters of the
rebellion, and William Stapleton, at Brother Bonaventure’s suggestion,
was chosen captain of the commons[263]. It is beyond doubt that the
influence of chaplains and confessors was used to encourage the
gentlemen to join the Pilgrimage, though it is not so certain that the
whole agitation can be attributed to them.

While the conservative priests were using persuasion the reformers often
unwittingly helped them by provoking violence. Religious differences may
lie at the bottom of a mysterious affair which took place at Marston.
Leonard Constable, the parson of Heyton Wansdale, otherwise called
Marston[264], brought a complaint before the Court of Star Chamber in
either 1525, 1531, or 1536. Unfortunately it is impossible to discover
which of these dates is correct, as the case is undated. Constable
stated that on 25 April Sir Oswald Wolsthrope and Sir Robert Waid,
clerk, procured that he should be attacked as he was performing the
service in the parish church by Sir Thomas Applegarth, clerk, and eight
other armed and riotous persons. They “violently came and took the
chalice from the Altar, where your said subject (Constable) was
standing, and said, ‘Thou horson polshorne priest, thou shalt not say
mass here, and therefore get thee out of the church, or we shall make
thee repent it’.” Afterwards the rioters broke into the parsonage and
“put in a certain person into the same to the intent to keep your said
subject out of the same, and said he should dwell there whether he would
or no.” On Sunday 30 April, Sir Oswald came to the parish church himself
with sixteen armed men. “And then and there the said Wolsthrope, your
said subject being at mass, and had almost celebrated the same, said
with a high voice these words following, that is to say, ‘You horson
priest, if I had come betime I would have nailed thy coat to thy back
with my dagger.’ And after that your said subject had finished his mass,
and kneeled down at the Altar, saying his orations and prayers, the said
Sir Oswald Wolsthrope ... came riotously to your said subject and
plucked him down by the hair backward, and gave him many opprobrious and
unfitting words, and put him in fear and jeopardy of his life.” The
cause of this behaviour on the part of Sir Oswald is not explained. It
cannot have been a dispute over the patronage of the rectory, for
Constable had been instituted in 1518, seven years before the earliest
date to which the dispute can be assigned[265]. If Constable had
provoked Sir Oswald by innovations and heretical practices, it is
surprising that he did not mention Sir Oswald’s disloyalty, unless
perhaps his own opinions were not those imposed by the government. But
although this riot cannot with certainty be attributed to religious
differences, it possibly gives the other side of the picture drawn by an
admiring martyrologist of a contemporary Yorkshire gentleman, Sir
William Mallory, who “was so zealous and constant a Catholic, than when
heresy first came into England, and Catholic service commanded to be put
down on such a day, he came to the church, and stood there at the door
with his sword drawn, to defend that none should come to abolish
religion, saying that he would defend it with his life, and continued
for some days keeping out the officers so long as he possibly
could.”[266]

A powerful bond between gentlemen, priests and commons was their intense
hatred of Cromwell. He was above all else detested as a heretic, but the
gentlemen also shared the contemptuous feelings of the nobles for an
upstart of low birth, and the northern gentlemen had a special grievance
against him, for which, doubtless, parallel cases could be found in
other parts of the kingdom. One of the most onerous duties of the
landowners was the administration of justice. Cromwell was anxious to
strengthen the hands of the judges against local anarchy, in pursuit of
his policy that England should have only one tyrant, but he was by no
means scrupulous as to the quality of the justice administered in the
royal courts. In March 1536 a case occurred at York Assizes which roused
helpless anger throughout the county. A certain William Wicliff was
charged by Mrs Carr of Newcastle-upon-Tyne with the murder of her
husband, Ralph Carr. The sheriff assured Christopher Jenney, one of the
judges, that the jury had been chosen by Carr’s friends, all except one
man “who was thought indifferent,” yet even this jury acquitted Wicliff.
The names of the jurors were sent up to Cromwell, and they were bound
under a recognizance of £100 each to appear before the Court of Star
Chamber on 20 May. Wicliff remained in prison, as Mrs Carr sued an
appeal for murder against him[267]. The jury were fined. This excited
general indignation in the north; Aske said that “the Lord Cromwell ...
for the extreme punishment of the great jury of Yorkshire, and for the
extreme assessment of their fines, was and yet is, in such horror and
hatred with the people of those parts, that in manner they would eat
him, and esteems their griefs only to arise by him and his
counsel.”[268] Another gentleman declared that “the said traitor
(Cromwell) constrains men to be perjured by extreme fines as Sir George
Conyers, Sir Oswald Wolsthrope and their fellows were if they would have
consented and esteemed their goods above the truth and worship.”[269]
Although Wicliff is not mentioned in the latter instance, it is probably
a reference to the same case.

The affair of Wicliff is typical of the crimes which were familiar to
the King, but almost incomprehensible in the north. A northern gentleman
did not hesitate to attack and kill his enemy in the street, but he
would not perjure himself and condemn an innocent man to death “for four
of the best dukes’ lands in France.” Abundant evidence has been given of
the lawlessness which prevailed in the north, but some virtues
flourished there also, which were absolutely necessary in the absence of
law. A gentleman spoke the truth and held his word sacred. It was
unthinkable that the King, the greatest gentleman of all, did not
observe the same code.

In the uncivilised north the Church still performed her old functions,
and religion was accepted with a childlike faith which, although tending
to superstition, was a decided influence for good. The simple moral and
religious principles of the northern gentlemen are not altogether
unworthy of respect, but they formed a poor preparation for a conflict
with Henry VIII.


                          NOTES TO CHAPTER III

  Note A. The authors of “The History of the House of Howard” say of
  Lady Bulmer “her character (was) foully, and, as has since been shown,
  lyingly, attacked by the King’s lawyers,” but we have failed to
  discover the defence of her character. Her own son did not deny that
  his sisters were born before his parents’ marriage[270].

  Note B. The document which accused Sir Robert Constable of breaking
  the liberties of Beverley is undated. Among the Letters and Papers it
  is placed with the evidence given at his trial. The reference to “Our
  Holy Father the Pope” shows that it must have been drawn up at least
  some years earlier.

  We have been unable to discover the case of Anne Grysanis, and it is
  possible that this Sir Robert Constable may not have been the villain.
  There were so many Constables.

  Note C. Possible translations of the inscription on Aughton church
  tower:—

    (1) “I (the tower) ought not to forget Christofer, second son of
    Robert Aske, knt, A.D. 1536.”

    (2) “Christofer, the second son of Robert Aske, knt. I ought not to
    forget, A.D. 1536.”

  Note D. Robert Aske is called Sir Robert’s third son in Tonge’s
  Visitation of 1530, but in 1507 he had a brother Richard, who seems to
  have come between Christopher and Robert, but died in childhood[271].

  Note E. Star Chamber Proceedings.

 Bundle XVIII, 252.    Sir H. Saville v. Sir R. Tempest.
   „      „    153.             „       v.      „        [272].
   „    XVII,  256.    Sir R. Tempest v. Sir H. Saville[273].
   „    XXII, 58 and                  „        v.      „
          147.
   „    XXI, 174.      Robert Holdesworth v. John Lacy, Thomas Saville,
                         Richard Holdesworth, Nic. Brodly.
   „    XXII, 201.     Sir H. Saville v. Sir R. Tempest.
   „          „        Sir Thomas Tempest v. Sir H. Saville.
   „    XXIII, 86.     Isabel Jepson v. Sir R. Tempest and Sir T.
                         Tempest and others for murder of her husband.
   „    XXIV, 238.     Sir R. Tempest v. Sir H. Saville.
   „       „   380.    Rex v. Sir R. Tempest.
   „    XXV, 37.       Sir H. Saville v. Sir Thomas Tempest.
   „     „   45, 55.   Inhabitants of various places v. Sir H. Saville.

  Note F. Christopher Jenney’s letter[274], dated 27 March but without
  the year, is placed in 1535 by the editor of the Letters and Papers,
  but from the reference in it to Thwaites the vicar of Londesborough,
  who was examined in November 1535, it seems that the letter more
  probably belongs to 1536.

  Note G. J. C. Cox in his transcript of William Stapleton’s
  Confession[275] identifies Thomas Johnson, Brother Bonaventure, with
  Thomas Johnson one of the monks of the London Charterhouse, but this
  identification is very improbable for the following reasons:—

    (_a_) It rests only on the name, which is too common to be a proof
    of identity.

    (_b_) William Stapleton evidently knew Brother Bonaventure well and
    would not be likely to mistake his Order.

    (_c_) It was contrary to the rules of the Charterhouse for any monk
    to wander about the country alone, but this was the usual practice
    of the friars.

    (_d_) Dom Thomas Johnson was not one of the four monks who were sent
    from London to the Hull Charterhouse in May 1536, but was still in
    London on 18 May 1537. In June that year he died in Newgate[276]. As
    the monks of the London Charterhouse had been under close
    supervision since May 1536, it is incredible that one of them should
    have escaped to the north in October, remained there for some time,
    and then returned again to prison.




                               CHAPTER IV
                           FACTS AND RUMOURS


The great events of the year 1535 were the executions of the
Charterhouse monks and of More and Fisher in June and July, followed by
the visitation of the monasteries by Cromwell’s commissioners in the
autumn. There is no need to retell these stories, for the object of this
chapter is neither to extol the martyrs nor to defend Cromwell’s
visitors, but rather to try to discover the feeling of the nation at
large, manifested by the words of numberless forgotten men and women,
who often paid for their devotion to the religion of their fathers with
their lives[277].

All up and down the land the friaries were storm-centres of revolt, and
the King’s first attack upon them only increased their influence. The
Friars Observant were the most recently reformed branch of the
Franciscan Order. They had been introduced into England by Henry VII,
and had only six houses in the country, Greenwich, Richmond in Surrey,
Cambridge, Southampton, Newark, and Newcastle-on-Tyne[278]. Their house
at Newcastle had formerly belonged to the conventual brothers of the
Order until Henry VII replaced them by the Observants[279]. It was
natural that this Order, newly established in England, should contain
the most uncompromising enemies of Henry VIII’s policy, and they
denounced the divorce so resolutely that their houses were suppressed in
1534[280]. The friars were transferred to the conventual houses of the
Order, but the result of this was that they infected the whole body with
their own discontent. But the other friars, though as yet not directly
attacked, were not ready to accept the new state of affairs quietly. On
the contrary, of all Cromwell’s opponents, they most hated the Act of
Supremacy. This was passed in the autumn of 1534, and throughout the
following year popular indignation grew and grew, as the agitation
against the new laws was secretly carried on. A friar who had embraced
the New Learning[281], hot against all “superstitious and popish
remembrances,” described the methods of his unconverted brethren to
Cromwell. In many church windows was pictured the story of St Thomas of
Canterbury, and he had heard the pardoners relate how the martyr was
slain for resisting the King, in defence not only of the liberties of
the Church, but also of the rights of the poor; for he would not grant
the King that “whosoever set his child to school should pay a tribute,
nor that no poor man should eat certain meats except he paid a
tribute.... These words and divers others remaining in the people’s
heads, which they call the articles of St Thomas.” Then the preacher
would point to the window where the penitent king knelt naked before the
martyr’s shrine, and leave the listeners to draw their own moral. The
friars mendicant “living by the alms of the King’s subjects” were
received everywhere by the poor as friends and teachers, although
Cromwell’s correspondent declared them to be all “unlearned and without
discretion.” They would seek out the “aged and simple” and “drive them
into admiration with such words as—Oh, father or sister, what a world is
this! It was not so in your father’s days. Ye may see it is a parlous
world. They will have no pilgrimage. They will not we should pray to
saints, or fast, or do any good deeds. Our Lord have mercy on us! I will
live as my forefathers have done, and I am sure your fathers and friends
were good.... Therefore I pray you continue as you have done, and
believe as your friends and fathers did; whatsoever the new fellows do,
say and do for yourself while ye be here.” The reformer considered that
these friars “do much hurt and will do, except they be otherwise
provided for, that they may no more so scatter abroad.” He concluded by
asking for a dispensation from his habit that he might “preach God’s
word.”[282] It may be imagined that his sermons would little please his
old brethren, and as a commentary on them or their like may be quoted
the words of a certain White friar, who said “that we should see a new
turn of the Bishop of Rome if we lived; that we were a many wretches of
this realm, without any charity, thus to blaspheme him, seeing that he
does not write against us, but we, malicious wretches, write and rail
against him without any charity; and though some of his predecessors
were evil, he is a good man.”[283] The Pope referred to was Paul III.
The friars were above all wandering preachers, and reports of seditious
sermons by Black, White, or Grey brethren were sent to Cromwell from
Norwich, Canterbury, Bristol, Kingswood in Wiltshire[284], and
Newcastle-on-Tyne, where the prior of the Black friars preached a series
of Lenten sermons in 1536 against the Royal Supremacy and then fled to
Scotland[285]. Some of the friars were simple and ignorant enough, but
no less powerful among the people for all that; others were more like
one of whom Latimer complained,—“wilily witted, Dunsly learned, Morely
affected, bold not a little, zealous more than enough,”[286] i.e.
learned in the lore of Duns Scotus and holding the opinions of Sir
Thomas More.

As an instance of the sort of conversation that went on within the
friaries there is the case of the Grey Friars of Grantham, which was
remarkable as being the northernmost house in which there was a
treacherous brother. Friar John Colsell, in his deposition of 23 August
1535, tried to fasten a charge of treason upon the Warden and other
brethren, though his motive was rather private malice than any love of
the New Learning. The Warden stated in his defence that he had rebuked
two unruly friars, who threatened to complain to the general visitor,
whereupon he said, “Well, this fashion will not last always. I trust we
shall have the correction of our own religion again, for it hath done a
hundred pounds worth of hurt since it was otherwise; for now, if they be
checked for their misorder they will threat a man to complain of him,
and yet in the end, after he know the truth, I trust the same visitor
will take them as they be.” Another of the accused friars had remarked,
concerning the erasure of the Pope’s name from the service books, “If
every Act were as well executed as this, we should have a merry world.”
One of the refractory friars asked, “Be they not so?” “No, for there was
an Act made concerning the Statute of Array, that no man should wear
satin, velvet nor damask unless he were a man of lands or a burgess,
which be now broken.” The aldermen of Grantham and other men of
influence in the town gave evidence in favour of the Warden, among them
Gervase Tyndale, the master of the free school. Tyndale was by no means
inclined to favour friars in general[287], for in November 1535 he wrote
to Cromwell asking for money, as he was employed in the business of
certain friars who were about to practise necromancy. In the same letter
he complained of a “doctor” who had preached in the town on All Souls’
Day about purgatory, saying that earthly fire was to the fire of
purgatory as a picture is compared to a man, and that one penny given to
a priest would release souls from purgatory. Tyndale remonstrated with
him, but the preacher had the support of the congregation. He called
Tyndale a Saxon heretic behind his back, and drove away all the boys
from the free school, lest their master should infect them with his
opinions[288].

The preaching, however, was not all one way, for there were a few
“heretics” wandering up and down the country, friars of a new creed.
These poor men were greatly to be pitied, standing as they did between
two fires. Henry and Cromwell were willing to use them, but regarded
them with the utmost suspicion, and were always ready to pounce upon
them if they transgressed the very narrow limits allowed. The ordinary
clergy and the mass of the people regarded them with hatred and
contempt. Their acts at first seem simply to have stirred up opposition,
though here and there are signs that their teaching was beginning to
produce an effect[289]. Any earnest soul simply and honestly trying to
find a satisfying religion must have been much confused by the laws
provided for his guidance. The parson of Staunton in Gloucester was in
trouble for saying that “if the King our sovereign did not go forth with
his laws as he began, he would call the King Anti-Christ;”[290] while
Wotton-under-Edge in the same county was full of discord “by reason of
divers opinions”; and one John Plummer was accused of saying “there
shall be a new world or Midsummer Day,” by which he meant, as he
explained, that he hoped “the King in his Parliament would make some
order of punishment for those who neither fast nor pray.”[291]

The questing soul would have found that it was just as dangerous to
speak for as against purgatory[292]; and if he dared to call images
idols he was not only likely to be attacked by his indignant neighbours,
but was also within reach of the law[293]. The law indeed permitted the
reading of the Scriptures in English, but public opinion was so much
against it that a layman complained of being set in the stocks for
having an English psalter[294], and the Prior of Haverfordwest appealed
to Cromwell against the Bishop of St David’s, who had forced him to give
up his English testament “as if to have a testament in English were
horrible heresy.”[295] So strong was this feeling that even the Bishop
of Lincoln, Longland, who was accounted a heretic, complained to
Cromwell of “Sir Swinnerton” and other preachers who were bad characters
and encouraged people to read English books; the men of Lincolnshire
“much grudged” against them[296].

But wandering preachers, whether heretic or papist, were only the
skirmishers of the religious fray; the reformers were weak in numbers,
but they poured their books and tracts, like an unceasing fire of heavy
artillery, from their foreign batteries; also they had an immensely
powerful, though suspicious, ally in the King. The romanists, on the
other hand, always hoped for but never received reinforcements from the
Pope. But they had numbers and tradition on their side, and their army
was very efficiently officered by the parish priests. The steady, quiet
opposition of these men was much the most effective defence attempted
against the King’s ecclesiastical policy. They had been ordered to blot
out the name of the Pope in all prayer and service books, and to repeat
a collect for the welfare of the King and Anne Boleyn[297], but
Cromwell’s informers continually reported cases of disobedience[298].
The vicar of Stanton Lacy, Salop, was accused of covering the Pope’s
name by a piece of paper fastened down with balm, instead of erasing the
words[299]. All the religious were very loath to reform their mass
books. They could not believe that the quarrel with Rome was more than a
passing cloud. “When the King is dead all these fashions will be laid
down,” was the general belief[300]. Richard Crowley, curate of
Broughton, Oxford, was accused of calling the Bishop of Rome Pope, and
of comparing him to the sun, the King to the moon and the people to the
stars, with the application that “the moon takes her light from the sun
and as the light of the sun is taken from us, so the world is dark and
the people in blindness.” He offered his parishioners pardon “during the
utas” at the feast of the Name of Jesus (7 August), declared that the
power of the Pope was as great as ever, and professed himself ready to
die for the true faith, like More, Fisher, and the fathers of Zion[301].
Only a few were as bold as he; others, who “would rather be torn with
wild horses than assent or consent to the diminishing of any one iote of
the bishop of Rome his authority, of old time and always holden and kept
in this realm,”[302] were content to speak their minds and then seek
safety overseas[303]; but the greatest number were like the curate of
Rye, who, though he had taken the oath to the King, had “done the
contrary,” and spread tracts against the Royal Supremacy[304].

So few people as yet favoured the New Learning that most of our
knowledge of the discontent is due to local disputes. If a priest
quarrelled with his parishioners, they would bring accusations against
him which, however true in themselves, would never have been laid
against a popular man. An example of this occurred at Harwich, Essex, at
the end of the year 1535, when thirty-two of his flock brought a variety
of charges against the priest, Thomas Corthrop, such as that he had not
erased the Pope’s name from his mass book, that he had called Dr Barnes
“false knave and heretic,”[305] that he had preached Anti-Christ and not
shown who Anti-Christ was, and so forth. He had also said in a sermon at
Bethlehem without Bishopgate, London, that “these new preachers nowadays
that doth preach their three sermons a day have made and brought in such
divisions and seditions among us as never was seen in this realm, for
the devil reigneth over us now.” The root of the complaint, however,
lies in the last two articles:—“That when the young men of the parish
entered the church on December 26 to chose them a Lord of Misrule with
minstrels to solace the parish and bring youths from cards and dicing,
the said priest had taken the pipe out of the minstrel’s hand, and
struck him on the head with it, and did next day preach a sermon that
the Children of Israel came dancing and piping before idols”; and that
he falsely accused his parishioners of hunting and bowling instead of
coming to church[306]. If it had not been for his puritanism in these
respects, most likely nothing would have been heard of his conservatism
in others.

The preachers were chiefly concerned with the relations between England
and the Pope, but the commons looked at the matter from a more personal
point of view. Queen Katherine was universally beloved, while Queen Anne
was detested. It was the divorce and the slaughter of the monks that
roused popular indignation rather than the abstract question of the
supremacy. A woman of “Senklers Bradfield,”[307] Suffolk, was accused of
rejoicing because Anne’s child was still-born (February 1535), and of
calling her “a goggle-eyed whore,” adding, “God save Queen Katherine for
she was righteous queen, and she trusted to see her queen again, and
that she should warrant the same.”[308]

Henry himself fully shared the ill-will showered upon his new wife. A
Buckinghamshire man declared “the King is but a knave and liveth in
adultry, and is an heretic and liveth not after the laws of God,” and
also “I set not by the King’s crown, and if I had it here I would play
at football with it.”[309] A yeoman named Adam Fermour, of Waldron in
Sussex, had just returned from London. His friends asked what the news
was. “What news, man?” said he. “By God’s blood! evil news, for the King
will make such laws that if a man die his wife and his children shall go
a-begging. He fell but lately and brake one of his ribs, and if he make
such laws it were pity but he should break his neck.”[310] The act that
roused his indignation must have been the Statute of Uses[311]. A few
laymen, perhaps, took exception to the Royal Supremacy, but most
contented themselves with abusing the King and Queen[312]. Others again
reviled the King’s favourites, and, of course, Cromwell first of all.
The vicar of Eastbourne said to an unreliable friend, while walking in
the churchyard, “They that rule about the King make him great banquets
and give him sweet wines and make him drunk,” and then “they bring him
bills and he putteth his sign to them, whereby they do what they will
and no man may correct them.” He lamented the execution of the Bishop of
Rochester (Fisher) and of Sir Thomas More, saying that they would be
sorely missed, for they were the most profound men of learning in the
realm[313].

As time went on, disloyalty steadily increased. At Coventry in November
1535 the royal proclamations were torn down from the market cross[314].
At Chichester in April 1536 a seditious bill was posted up[315].

From Crowle in Worcestershire came several reports of treasonable
speeches. In August 1535 Edmund Brocke, an aged husbandman, walking home
from Worcester market in the rain, was heard to say, “It is ’long of the
King that this weather is so troublous and unstable, and I ween we shall
never have better weather whiles the King reigneth, and therefore it
maketh no matter if he were knocked or patted on the head.”[316] A year
later accusations were brought against James Pratt, the vicar of Crowle.
Witnesses deposed that on the Sunday before St Bartholomew’s Day (24
August) he had said in an ale-house “that the church went down and would
be worse until there be a shrappe made, and said that he reckoned there
were 20,000 nigh of flote, and wished there were 20,000 more, so that he
were one, and rather tomorrow than the next day, for there shall never
be good world until there be a schrappe. And they that may escape that
shall live merry enough.” Statistics were very roughly calculated in
those days, but the 20,000 men whom the vicar believed to be “nigh of
flote” appear again and again in the report of the rebels’ forces, and
perhaps he had some grounds for his prophecy, though he was probably
drunk when he made it. If not strictly temperate he was at any rate
brave and loyal to his friends; when examined by torture, he would
confess nothing but that he had heard divers persons, whom he would not
name, say the Church was never so sore handled[317]. Earlier in the same
year (1536) Thomas Sowle, a priest of Penrith in Cumberland, had
wandered south to Tewkesbury, where he said in an ale-house, “We be kept
bare and smit under, yet we shall rise once again, and 40,000 of us will
rise upon a day.”[318] By degrees the mutterings of discontent became
more definite. Thomas Toone, parson of Weeley, Essex, came home from a
visit to the north at the beginning of September 1536 in harvest time.
Two of his parishioners went with him one day into the fields called
“Lambeles Redoon” and “Wardes” to gather tithe sheaves. “There shall be
business shortly in the north,” said the priest, “and I trust to help
strength my countrymen with 10,000 such as I am myself, and that I shall
be one of the worst of them all.” The labourer answered quietly, “Little
said is soon amended.” The priest added hastily, “Remember ye not what I
said unto you right now, care ye not for that, for an Easter come, the
King shall not reign long.” The priest went on up the furrow gathering
the tithe sheaves, and the two countrymen agreed together to say nothing
of the matter for the present[319]. They waited, like hundreds of
others, ready to applaud the priest if he succeeded, or to accuse him if
he failed.

Such was the state of the south on the eve of the rebellion. The general
opinion was that “the new laws might be suffered for a season, but
already they set men together by the ears and in time they would cause
broken heads.”[320] In the north the discontent was all the more
dangerous because less is heard of it[321]. It was by no means less
active than in the south, but there were fewer informers. In 1535,
Layton, one of Cromwell’s hated visitors, wrote to his master on the
religious state of the northern counties, where he was about to begin
his visitation of the monasteries: “There can be no better way to beat
the King’s authority into the heads of the rude people of the north than
to show them that the King intends reformation and correction of
religion.” He described them as “more superstitious than virtuous, long
accustomed to frantic fantasies and ceremonies, which they regard more
than either God or their prince, right far alienate from true
religion.”[322] And there are a few indications of the trend of popular
sympathy.

Edward Lee, the Archbishop of York, though usually entirely subservient
to the King, once or twice protested against the granting of licences to
heretic preachers, who spoke against purgatory, pilgrimages, and so
forth “wherewith the people grudge, which otherwise all the King’s
commandment here obey diligently, as well for the setting forth of his
title of supreme head as also of the abolition of the primate of
Rome.”[323] In spite of this assertion, when the parish priest of
Guisborough, Yorkshire, was reading the articles of the King’s Supremacy
in church on 11 July 1535, John Atkinson, alias Brotton, “came violently
and took the book forth of the priest’s hands, and pulled it in pieces,
and privily conveyed himself forth of the church.” A search was made for
him, but perhaps not a very exhaustive one; at least he was not
found[324].

Very touching are the words of the priest of Winestead, who on Midsummer
Day 1535 begged his people to pray for him, “for he had made his
testament and was boune to such a journey that he trowed never to see
them again. And it is said there is no Pope, but I say there is one
Pope.” He was committed to the Archbishop’s prison at York and his fate
is unknown[325].

The Royal Supremacy was attacked in books as well as by action and
example. On 7 July 1535 Bishop Tunstall wrote to tell Cromwell that a
book called “Hortulus Animae,” but printed in English, had been brought
to him from Newcastle, and that he found in the calendar at the end of
it “a manifest declaration against the effect of the act of parliament
lately made, for the establishment of the King’s succession ... which
declaration is made ... upon the day of the decollation of St John
Baptist, to show the cause why he was beheaded.”[326] It was easy to
draw a sufficiently trenchant parallel between Herod, Herodias, and St
John on the one hand, and Henry, Anne, and the Catholic martyrs on the
other. Later in the same year other books were “taken up,” which treated
of purgatory and magnified the power of the Pope[327].

The depositions against William Thwaites, parson of Londesborough, form
the fullest case remaining against a Yorkshire parish priest, and they
are especially interesting because the circumstances must have come
under the notice of Robert Aske. His brother Christopher had lands in
Londesborough, and John Aske was the magistrate who heard the second set
of depositions on 13 November 1535. John Nesfield, the bailiff of
Londesborough, was the principal witness. He charged the vicar with
saying “about the Invention of Holy Cross last” (3 May 1535) that he was
glad to hear of the subsidy “for now shall ye temporal men be pilled and
polled as well as the spiritual men be.” He also said that England had
now no allies but the Lutherans, and that an interdict on the realm lay
at Calais and other foreign ports. If it were brought into the country,
there would be no more Christian burial for men than for dogs, “howbeit
the King will not obey it.” He had refused to attend when summoned to
appear before Archdeacon Magnus on 29 June 1535 at Warter Priory, when
the other curates of the deanery were given briefs to declare every
Sunday; these must have been the briefs for the Royal Supremacy[328].
Thwaites never published his copy until the Sunday before Holyrood Day
(14 September), when his parishioners began to murmur. There were three
other witnesses who had heard him say that the King would be destroyed
by the most vile people in the world “and that he should be glad to take
a boat for safeguard of his life and flee into the sea, and forsake his
own realm; and, masters, there hangs a cloud over us, what as it means I
know not.” He also spoke much of prophecies about future battles[329].

Thwaites was tried at the York Assizes in March 1536, and was acquitted
on the grounds that the charge was malicious. Nevertheless he was sent
up to London to appear before Cromwell next term[330].

Although all classes were to a certain extent hostile to the religious
changes, a sharp line was drawn between the disaffection of the
gentlemen on account of the new laws, and the unrest of the lower orders
under social conditions. The troubles of the commons may be summed up in
the one word—change. Everything was changing,—the relations of the
landlord to the tenant, of the labourer to the land, of the buyer to the
seller, of the layman to the church,—and in most cases the change bore
heavily on the poor man. It was all this changing that he resented so
profoundly; he disliked to see the abbeys pulled down and the monks
turned out, just as he disliked raised rents and sheep-farming
enclosures, and an English service in the parish church. About an
abstract question like that of the Supremacy he cared little, and if the
King had been content with his new title and spared the monasteries,
there would probably have been no rebellion, but only a series of
isolated disturbances raised by the commons and easily put down by the
gentlemen, such as the Craven riots of June 1535. The rioters tore down
the enclosures made by the Earl of Cumberland, the most ill-beloved of
the northern nobles. Their grievances were the usual ones: fields which
when tilled had supported families were turned into pasturage for the
lord’s profit, and the common lands were shamelessly stolen. The
authorities had no difficulty in finding and punishing a suitable number
of offenders[331]. In December there was rioting in Galtres Forest by
York, but here the sympathy of the gentlemen was with the rioters, for
in spite of the evidence the inquest which the Earl of Northumberland
appointed to deal with the affair refused to “find a riot,” at the
instigation of Thomas Delaryver, one of the jurors[332]; and in April
1536 Sir Arthur Darcy appealed to Cromwell on behalf of the people of
Galtres Forest, who were being troubled by Mr Curwen and Sir Thomas
Wharton about an alleged riot although it was barley-seed time and they
were in great poverty[333].

The people about Snape assembled in April 1536 to attack the
commissioners for the subsidy, but when they reached the place they only
found the spiritual officers holding a court, and so they
dispersed[334]. This assembly must have been promoted by the yeomen
farmers, who, being the poorest class included in the subsidy, naturally
resented it most.

At the end of 1535, commons, yeomen, and gentlemen were as yet far from
forgetting their contending economic grievances in their common
religious ones. Darcy himself was involved in a quarrel with his tenants
at Rothwell about enclosures[335], and parties with interests so
different might never have united, if the dissolution of the lesser
monasteries had not welded them into one.

The Act was passed in March 1536[336], and the suppression began in May.
News travelled so slowly, and the proceedings of the government were so
little understood, that the first intimation of the coming change must
often have been the arrival of the commissioners who were to suppress
the monastery. The effect on the people may be imagined when they saw
the monks turned out, their alms stopped, their lands given to an
absentee landlord, their buildings pulled down, or unroofed and left to
fall to ruin.

When the idea of dissolving the monasteries was throwing the whole
kingdom into a turmoil, it may well be asked how it was received in the
monasteries themselves. There is strangely little information on this
point. As early as February 1536, that is, a month before the act was
passed, Thomas Duke[337], the vicar of Hornchurch, Essex, had been heard
to say that “the King and his council hath made a way by wiles and
crafts to pull down all manner of religious, and thus they go about to
abbots and priors and possessioners and agree with them to deliver up
their rights and promise them a sufficient living, a hundred marks or
more, and when they have given all over, all other must needs give over,
but an they would hold hard for their part, which be their rights, the
King could not pull down none, nor all his council.”[338] From this and
other evidence it is clear that Cromwell had taken steps to ensure the
peaceful surrender of houses[339]. In the majority of cases the monks
must have felt very bitterly against those who forced them from their
chosen life, and numbers of abbots and abbesses spared neither trouble
nor gold in vainly trying to save their houses from the general spoil.
Others again simply could not believe that such an order would really be
carried out; such a one was the Abbot of Woburn, whose ruthful story
Froude has told[340]. In June 1536 the Abbot of Tavistock was heard to
say at table, “Lo, the King sends about to suppress many houses of
religion, which is a piteous case; and so did the Cardinal (Wolsey) in
his time, but what became of him and what end he made for his so doing,
I report me unto you; all men knows.”[341]

It has often been said that if all the religious had borne themselves as
did the Carthusian martyrs, the Reformation would have been impossible.
This is perfectly true, and perhaps, religiously speaking, the monks
ought to have been prepared to die to a man rather than give way,
especially as their training was supposed to be the best possible
preparation for martyrdom. But they were handicapped. The King struck so
suddenly that they had no time, even if they had the necessary
determination, to agree on any common action. There were no positive
orders from the Pope, and the immediate superiors whom the monks were
bound to obey were often either bribed by Cromwell or turned out to make
way for government servants. Then there were discontented monks, and
monks who inclined to the New Learning, in many of the houses.
Nevertheless there was nothing that could have stayed real enthusiasm if
it had swept through the monasteries. The monks of the Charterhouse
could die, and the canons of Hexham could take up arms. Others might
have done as they did, instead of going forth sadly and lamenting their
hard lot. It was not that the religious did not care, but that they did
not care quite enough. And yet it is scarcely fair to blame them for
lack of zeal. It is impossible, humanly speaking, that a large and
scattered class of men and women, united only by the common aim of their
lives and schooled in implicit obedience, should be able to defy in
solid and unbroken ranks the law under which they live. The case of the
romanist priests who suffered during the Elizabethan persecution is not
to the point. They were enthusiasts who were eager for martyrdom, like
the leaders of a forlorn hope. The religious of Henry VIII’s reign were
peaceful votaries, and however well the monastic life may have fitted
them to praise God, feed the poor, and teach the children, it could not
produce men capable of resisting constitutional authority. People
grumbled as much then as now at acts of parliament, and thought of
resisting them as little. The monks were not as a class capable of
refusing to acknowledge Henry’s supremacy, but they were eminently
suited to carry on a long passive resistance, and this was one of the
reasons which moved the King to rid himself of them. Having once
recognised Henry as Head of the Church of England, they were helpless
against the further attack. Morally they had admitted themselves
absolutely at his mercy; actually they might perhaps have made a better
fight than they did, for the people were almost everywhere on their
side; but as the whole aim of their way of living had been to cut them
off completely from the world, the better they were from the
ecclesiastical point of view, the more helpless they were to take any
action in practical life. They were not even convinced that any action
on their part was necessary.

The fall and execution of Anne Boleyn in May 1536 was received with
universal rejoicing, and conservative people expected the longed-for
reaction in ecclesiastical affairs. But in the very month that rid them
of the cause of their troubles the suppression began. Before the end of
July they realised that their hopes were not to be fulfilled, and within
the next month the country was alive with “rumours,” as the royal spies
said, though it was really a secret political agitation. The King was at
great pains to trace out these rumours after the rebellion, because he
wished to represent that such of them as he had no present intention of
carrying out were the only cause of the rising. Consequently, when the
poor, deluded commons discovered how false the tales were, they would at
once return to their allegiance, without making any inconvenient
demands. Nevertheless the rumours were usually based on fact, or
anticipated measures which were afterwards taken, and the outstanding
facts of the Treason Act, the Succession Acts, the subsidy, the Royal
Supremacy and the Dissolution of the Monasteries were undeniable and
gave colour to the rest. When the King was actively engaged in robbing a
church, what hope was there that he would spare his subjects? The
commonest rumours were as follows:

(_a_) All the jewels and vessels of the parish churches were to be taken
away, and such as were necessary were to be replaced by tin or
brass[342]. This report was the natural sequel of the pillaging of the
monasteries and the destruction of the shrines. Though Henry himself did
not make such a confiscation, it occurred in his son’s reign.

(_b_) All gold, coined and uncoined, was to be taken to the mint to be
tested, and every man would be obliged to pay for the testing[343].

(_c_) One of the rumours which had least foundation in fact was that
parish churches were to be at least five miles apart. Where they stood
nearer together, the separate parishes were to be united into one, and
the unneeded churches were to be pulled down[344]. Even now there is
great local rivalry between parish and parish. At that time it often
rose to a positive feud. The idea that the ancient landmarks would be
removed and that men would be compelled to worship with their
neighbouring enemies was enough to make some parishes take up arms.

(_d_) A tax was to be levied on all horned cattle. Those on which it had
been paid would be marked, and any found unmarked would be
confiscated[345]. This rumour probably originated in the legislation
concerning graziers[346].

(_e_) In anticipation of Cromwell’s parish registers, it was said that
all christenings, marriages, and burials were to be taxed[347].

(_f_) No poor man was to be permitted to eat white bread, goose or capon
without paying a tribute to the King[348]. The probable source of this
rumour has already been mentioned[349]. It is a reminder that though the
Tudor sumptuary laws seem very quaint now, they must have been a real
hardship at the time.

(_g_) Finally, it was said that every man would be sworn to give an
account of his property and income. If he falsified the return all his
goods would be forfeited[350]. This was simply a complaint against the
subsidy in rather an exaggerated form.

Such were the more fantastic of the stories which were passing from
mouth to mouth. It is evident that they were no wider of the truth than
many political agitations in our own time, and with them were united the
real grievances which have already been mentioned They passed through
the country from market to market[351], and can be traced as far south
as Devon, where on 5 September a “somner” was accused of spreading
them[352]. They circulated chiefly in the midland and eastern counties.
Aske declared that they were never heard in Yorkshire until after Guy
Kyme brought them with the Lincolnshire articles[353]. Stapleton however
heard at Beverley that several parishes were to be made into one and the
church jewels taken away[354]; and Breyar was told of the tax on horned
cattle and on every “child and chymley” at Sturley and Retford[355]. It
is natural that rumours should spread from the south to the north bank
of the Humber, and Aske first heard them from the ferryman as he was
crossing at Barton[356]. It would be difficult to find a better way of
spreading news than by enlisting ferrymen to repeat it to their fares.
But though the rumours were certainly known in Yorkshire after the
rising began, they do not seem to have spread very far, or to have had
much influence there. The newsbearers who carried them need not be
accused of ill-faith; in all probability they really believed what they
said, and this gave their words all the more weight. Their work may be
compared to that of the Evangelical Brotherhood in Germany, formed in
1524, whose members each contributed a small weekly sum “to defray the
expenses of the bearers of the secret despatches which were to be
distributed far and wide throughout Germany, inciting to amalgamation
and a general rising.”[357] The effect of their propaganda was soon
seen.

Early in August 1536 riots broke out in Cumberland, and the Bishop of
Carlisle was accused of promoting them[358]. In Norfolk there were
stirrings at the beginning of September. An organ-maker “intended to
make an insurrection” at Norwich, but he was arrested by the Duke of
Norfolk, who also took up another “right ill person” who spoke lewd
words[359]. Men from Lincolnshire were reporting in other counties that
“anyone who would go thither at Michaelmas should have honest living,
for diking and fowling,” and there were several who took the hint and
set out for Lincolnshire as soon as the harvest was over[360]. The
commissioners and their servants were by no means careful to allay the
unrest. On St Matthew’s Day (21 September) a tall serving-man in Louth
church declared that the silver almsbowl was “meeter for the King than
for them.” Whereupon one of the congregation “fashioned to draw his
dagger, saying that Louth and Louthesk should make the King and his
master[361] such a breakfast as they never had.”[362] It was said at
Grimsby that the people of Hull had sold their church plate and jewels
and paved the town with the proceeds, in order that the King might not
get them[363]. In the Yorkshire dales the people had taken an oath and
were on the verge of rebellion, openly speaking treason[364].

It was impossible that rumours should circulate and oaths be taken
without some human agency, but the men who were conducting the agitation
are difficult to discover. The King’s pardon to the rebels only covered
the period of the actual rebellion; any treasonable word or action
before that time was to be punished. In consequence very little can be
learned about the time of preparation. The prisoners naturally declared
that they had been taken unawares and knew nothing of the business until
they were compelled to join the insurgents. In such a situation a little
prevarication is pardonable, and it is scarcely wronging Aske,
Stapleton, and others to say that they probably knew more than they
would admit about the origin of the rebellion. Sometimes there is a
glimpse of a friar or a vicar, such as the priest of Penrith and the
vicar of Crowle, and sometimes it is some person indirectly
ecclesiastical, a summoner or an organ-maker, who may be suspected of
knowing the secret; but of the laymen engaged in the agitation only two
can be identified, and very little can be discovered about even these
two.

One of them was Guy Kyme of Louth, who was executed at Lincoln after the
rebellion[365]. On Saturday 30 September and Sunday 1 October 1536 he
was at Grimsby. He said that his business was “about the conveyance of
certain suspected pirates of a ship of Feversham to Lincoln,”[366] but
several people believed he was already in communication with the
disaffected in Yorkshire[367], and during the rising he was sent as a
messenger from the insurgents to Beverley[368]. Anthony Curtis, the
other agent, is a still more problematic character. He lived in
Grimsby[369], and was connected with the Askes[370], though the
relationship cannot now be traced. He was a fellow-lawyer of Robert
Aske’s at Gray’s Inn[371]. Like Kyme he was concerned in carrying news
from Lincolnshire to Yorkshire[372]. Both these men, it is to be noted,
were from the north of Lincolnshire, and several details seem to point
to the fact that this country was the headquarters of the agitation.

In addition to the definite rumours about new taxes and changes, there
was the vaguer but perhaps no less influential mass of wandering
prophecies. As early as 1535 a certain hermit of Bristol, returning home
after a visit to Lincolnshire, called Katherine of Arragon “the Queen of
Fortune,” and declared that when the time came she would make ten men
against the King’s one[373]. During May and June of the same year it
rained continually, and it was murmured that this was God’s vengeance
for the death of monks[374]. In London a prophecy went about that there
would be a month “rainy and full wet, next month death, and the third
month war,”[375] and another that “the floods flowing in Britain shall
cause a great insurrection.”[376] The connection between floods and
rebellion was obvious; when the rain spoiled the harvest the people
starved, and were ready for any mischief. Before the Peasants’ Revolt in
Germany it was prophesied that there would be a second Flood in the
summer of 1524[377]. Prophecies almost as vague and quite as likely to
come true can be found to-day in any newspaper; now, as then, the
weather and politics are the two subjects on which mankind always
listens to the seer, however often misled.

The story of one of the strangest prophecies was told by a Dorsetshire
justice on 20 May 1535. A servant of his was overheard lamenting first
the stormy weather, and then the state of the kingdom, “saying it was a
heavy world and like to be worse shortly, for he heard say that the
priests would rise against the King.” Inquiries were made, and the
servant admitted that one of the tenants had told him some such words,
which he had from an old man living but three miles from Chideock. The
justice set out to see the prophet, who was too aged to come before him.
When questioned he said it was true he had told several neighbours that
“the priests should make a field”; he knew this from his master, a very
wise man, who had been dead fifty years. The rest of the prophecy ran,
“that the parish priests should rule England three days and nights, and
then the White Falcon should come out of the North-West and kill almost
all the priests, and they that should escape should be fain to hide
their crowns with the filth of beasts, because they would not be
known.”[378] The White Falcon was the badge of Anne Boleyn, and these
very adaptable phrases suggest the brief reign of Mary and the Catholic
persecutions under “the White Falcon’s” daughter.

Anne Boleyn’s reign and fall were said to have been foretold by
Merlin[379]. “A.B. and C.” are of frequent occurrence in the prophecies,
even after her death, probably standing for Anne Boleyn and Cromwell.
The monks of Furness had a saying “that A B and C should sit all in one
seat, and should work great marvels,” and that afterwards “the decorate
rose shall be slain in his mother’s belly.” It does not appear how long
this saying had been known in the house, but during the winter of 1536
they interpreted it to mean that Henry should be slain by the hands of
the priests, for the Church he oppressed was his mother[380]. The
prophecies circulated chiefly in the monasteries and among the priests
and friars. The Prior of Malton in Rydale described a picture drawn on
parchment which he had seen fifteen years before (1512) at Rostendale
(Ravenstonedale) in Westmorland; it showed a moon waxing and waning,
each moon with the date of the year beneath. Over the full moon was
drawn a Cardinal, and under the old moon two headless monks; in the
midst was a child “with axes and butchers’ knives and instruments about
him.”[381] This recalls another prophecy of 1512, which made a deep
impression on the mind of Cromwell, “that one with a Red Cap brought up
from low degree to high estate should rule all the land under the
King ... and afterwards procure the King to take another wife, divorce
his lawful wife Queen Katherine, and involve the land in misery ... that
divorce should lead to the utter fall of the said Red Cap ... and after
much misery the land should by another Red Cap be reconciled or else
brought to utter destruction.”[382]

Dr Maydland, a Black friar of London, had discovered by necromancy in
November 1535 that the New Learning should be suppressed, and the Old
restored by the King’s enemies beyond the seas. He was in hopes that the
King would die a violent death, and that he would see the Queen (Anne)
burnt, and the head of every maintainer of the New Learning on a
stake[383].

It was treason to possess copies of such prophecies. On 2 April 1536 the
parson of Wednesborough was accused of possessing one; other accusations
against him were that he was a Scot, and “if well handled” could
“declare a multitude of papists[384].” In June the canons of Tortington
in Sussex were accused of reading prophecies[385], and, as mentioned
above, the vicar of Londesborough repeated them. In spite of the danger,
scrolls of prophecies were often circulated by the owner among his
friends, who took copies or committed the striking parts to memory; some
made regular collections, borrowing or learning all they could find to
add to the rolls, and so, as sayings or writings, the verses spread
through a whole district. One of these collections is preserved among
the Lansdowne MS[386]; it seems to have been compiled about 1531 as a
whole, but contains later entries[387]. In it is a version of the
prophecies of Thomas the Rymer, and it concludes with an account of the
great deeds to be done by “a child with a chaplet,”[388] who shall reign
for fifty-five years, and after restoring peace in England shall recover
the Holy Cross from Jerusalem and bring it back in triumph to Rome,
where his bones will finally be buried in great honour. As long as the
King remained a faithful son of the Church there was no harm in this
ordinary ballad conclusion, but once Henry had quarrelled with the Pope
it wore a very different aspect, and men began to think that the King
who was such a welcome guest at Rome could not be Henry himself, or one
of Henry’s heirs, but his conqueror[389].

The vicar of Mustone was accused before the Council of the North in 1537
of spreading seditious prophecies. This man, John Dobsone by name, was
like nearly all the northern clergy secretly in favour of the Pope.
Doubtless most of his parishioners agreed with him, but three of them,
disliking either his opinions or himself, accused him of relating in the
ale-house and the church porch that the King would be driven out of his
realm, and then return and be content with a third part of it; that the
Eagle “which is the Emperor ... shall rule all the land at his
pleasure”; that the Dun Cow “which is the bishop of Rome ... shall come
into England jingling with her keys and set the church again in the
right faith”; also that “When the Crumme (Cromwell) is brought low Then
shall begin the Christ’s Cross row.” The vicar denied the charge that he
had any such writings in a book, though he admitted he had seen such a
collection. He also denied that he had ever repeated them in public, and
all the witnesses whom his accusers cited bore him out in this, and
declared he was an honest man denounced from private malice. The
Council, though they committed him to gaol and wrote to the King for
instructions, were inclined to take a lenient view of his case. But they
energetically set to work to hunt out the originators of such dangerous
sayings. The result is like an Arabian story, tale following tale in
endless sequence. Dobsone had first heard of the prophecies at the White
Friars at Scarborough in October 1536. The Warden of the Grey Friars,
who was visiting there, spoke of a prophecy that was going about,
whereupon the Prior of the White Friars produced a roll of paper on
which a number were written. It was in fact a collection that he had
been making for some years. He lent it to Dobsone, who justified his
confidence by returning it in a fortnight. Another friend of the prior’s
was not so particular. He borrowed the roll and it was stolen from his
house during the insurrection, but several accounts of the contents
remain. The prophecies were said to be declared by “Merlion,” St Bede,
and Thomas of Ercildoune, but they were copied from many sources[390].
The earliest told how “when the Black fleet of Norway was comed and
gone, after in England war shall be never,” and other things equally
harmless[391]. Others were given the prior in May 1536 by a priest of
Beverley, whom he never saw before or after. They began “France and
Flanders shall arise” and perhaps included the Eagle and the Cow, as
well as some obscure forebodings of battles where “the clergy should
stand in fear and fight as they seculars were,” with which a “long man
in red” would have something to do. The most interesting relate to the
great northern families, which were indicated by their badges, as is
usual in sayings and ballads. The cock was the crest of the Lumleys, and
one prophecy runs “the cock of the north shall be plucked and pulled,
and curse the time that ever he was lord,” but after his misfortunes “he
shall busk him and brush his feathers, and call his chickens togethers
and after that he shall do great adventures.” “The moon shall lose her
light, and after shall take light of the sun again” refers to the
crescent badge of the Percies, and the Tudor crest of a rose surrounded
by the rays of the sun. The scallop shells of the Dacres “shall be
broken and go to wreck.” At the end of the roll “Thomas demandeth of
Merlion and Bede saying when shall these things be? About the year of
Our Lord God 1537.” The Council of the North thought the rhyme about
Cromwell the most serious, and made every effort to find the author.
There were numberless versions, the best lines being:

             “Much ill cometh of a small note
             As (a) Crumwell set in a man’s throat
             That shall put many other to pain, God wote;
             But when Crumwell is brought a-low,”[392] etc.

The gentleman who gave it to the prior had learnt it from a priest, who
heard it from a brother priest about Michaelmas 1536 “in the buttery at
Ayton.” The second priest had it from the clerk of a remote parish as
they walked together in a country loaning. The investigators might have
traced its journey from mouth to mouth all round the country without
finding anyone definitely responsible for it; but they gave up the
hopeless quest at this point[393].

There lived at this time at Huntington in Yorkshire one Wilfrid Holme, a
man with poetical leanings and a favourer of the New Learning. After the
rebellion he set to work to write an account of it, or rather he
included an account of it in a poem entitled, “The Fall and Evil Success
of Rebellion from Time to Time.” It is interesting as being the only
contemporary history of the Pilgrimage, but Holme gives few details, and
though many facts are correct he throws little new light on the subject.
His last canto is headed “Of the Mouldwarp,” and concerns a prophecy of
Merlin’s which the rebels applied to the King. Holme never repeats this
prophecy, but it seems to have been that the Mouldwarp, “the sixth
king,” should be coward and caitiff, and have a skin like a goat. Holme
states (without giving a reason) that the reckoning must be made from
Henry III, and accordingly Henry IV was the sixth king and Henry VIII
the twelfth, as he does not reckon Richard III. Therefore the Mouldwarp
could not be Henry VIII,—

                            “... Except ye skip at pleasure
        To take here one and there one your purpose to defend.”

Moreover Henry VIII is neither caitiff, coward, nor hairy. Holme never
says what was to happen to the Mouldwarp. That Henry IV was believed to
be that monster by Owen Glendower and his fellow conspirators is a
tradition preserved in “The Mirror for Magistrates”:

            “And for to set us hereon more agog,
            A prophet came (a vengeance take them all!)
            Affirming Henry to be Gogmagog,
            Whom Merline doth a mouldwarp ever call,
            Accurst of God, that must be brought in thrall
            By a wolf, a dragon and a lion strong,
            Who should divide his kingdom them among.”[394]

After such a string of doubtful fables the excellent good sense of
Hotspur is a pleasing change,

                        “... Sometimes he angers me
              With telling me of the moldwarp and the ant,
              Of the dreamer Merlin and his prophecies,
              And of a dragon and a finless fish,
              A clip-wing’d griffin and a moulten raven,
              A couching lion and a ramping cat,
              And such a deal of skimble-skamble stuff
              As puts me from my faith.”[395]

Yet one more must be mentioned—the Pilgrims’ own prophecy, which was
commonly repeated in their host throughout the rising,

            “Forth shall come a worm, an aske with one eye,
            He shall be chief of the meiny;
            He shall gather of chivalry a full fair flock,
            Half capon and half cock,
            The chicken shall the capon slay,
            And after that there shall be no May.”[396]

The interpretations of this must have varied at the time, and now they
can only be guessed. The lines about the capon and the cock seem to
predict disunion among the insurgents themselves such as brought about
the failure of the Lincolnshire rising. It has been suggested[397] that
in the last line, foretelling the end of the rebellion, the “May” means
the badge of Henry VII, the crown of England hanging on a hawthorn tree,
and so anticipates the fall of his dynasty. Reading it after the event,
it has rather the sense of spring without summer and fair promises
unfulfilled.

From amid the prophecies, rumours and travellers’ tales which were
agitating the country during the summer of 1536 one point looms up,—that
great events might be expected at Michaelmas. The government was only
half aware of what was going on. But the army of the discontented, the
starving labourers, the homeless monks, the sincere believers in the old
religion, knew that when Michaelmas Day had come and gone they might
expect news from the north. The King was at Windsor in September, and on
the 27th he bade Ralph Sadler send word to the Lord Privy Seal to summon
the Privy Council and attend the King at once. Sadler suggested there
might be some delay as the command would not reach Cromwell until late
on the following afternoon, and the day after was Michaelmas. “What
then?” quoth his Grace, “Michaelmas Day is not so high a day.”[398] When
so many saints’ days had given way to his pleasure, why should the King
heed Michaelmas Day? Yet that Michaelmas Day came near to mastering the
King.


                          NOTES TO CHAPTER IV

  Note A. Throughout this book the “New Learning” is used in the sense
  of protestant or anti-papal opinions, not as another name for the
  classical revival.

  Note B. One of his parishioners, John Bird, tried to lay information
  against him, but Duke had sufficient influence to stop him, and the
  accusation was not made until after the rebellion, for Bird mentions
  witnesses to whom he spoke “a month before the rising.” There is
  another deposition by Bird against a priest in L. and P. XII (1), 301,
  too much mutilated to be intelligible. Cf. XI, 1495.

  Note C. Other prophecies of about the same period are printed by
  Furnivall, op. cit. pp. 316–20, but they are unintelligible.

  Note D. The Prophecies of Rymour, Beid and Marleyng[399]:

            “When the black fleet of Norway is comen and gone
              And drenched in the flood truly
            Mickle war hath been beforne
              But after shall none be.

            Holy Church shall harnes hent
              And III years stand on stere,
            Meet and fight upon a bent,
              Even as they seculars were.”

  Note E. A curious illustration of the feelings with which the north
  regarded the King’s family arrangements is given by the fragmentary
  story of Mary Baynton, a girl of eighteen, the daughter of Thomas
  Baynton of Birlington, i.e. Bridlington in Yorkshire. The only
  document relating to her adventures is undated, but probably belongs
  to the year 1533. She made her appearance at Boston in Lincolnshire,
  and represented herself as the Princess Mary fleeing from her father’s
  cruelty. Although she must eventually have been arrested, she seems to
  have been received with respect and sympathy. Her fate is unknown, and
  it is impossible to say whether she was a deliberate impostor or a
  self-deluded lunatic. There is nothing to show that she had any
  accomplices, but it is interesting to observe that she was connected
  with Bridlington and Boston, which were two centres of the rebellion.
  Her story was “that the French queen was her aunt and her godmother,
  and upon a time the said French queen, being of her pleasure in a
  bath, and she with her there, looked upon a book and said to her,
  ‘Niece Mary, I am right sorry for you, for I see here that your
  fortune is very hard; you must go a-begging once in your life, either
  in your youth or in your age.’ And therefore I take it upon me now in
  my youth, and I intend to go beyond the sea to mine uncle the emperor,
  as soon as I may get shipping.”[400]

  Note F. In April 1536 there was a disturbance in Somersetshire about
  which little is known. On 21 April 1536 John Py informed Cromwell that
  he had arrested Thomas Towghtwodde of Bridgewater. The prisoner had
  attempted to fly the country because his apprentice “was one of those
  who made the business in Somerset.” The apprentice was three days with
  “those who made the business ... till my lord Fewaryn sent him
  home.”[401]

  In May Cromwell noted among his remembrances “the poor men of Somerset
  for their pardon,”[402] and on 26 May 140 persons were pardoned for
  making unlawful assemblies in Somerset[403]. Others were executed for
  the same offence, and £50 were allowed for expenses to “Serjeant Hinde
  the King’s Solicitor and others that went for the executing of the
  rebels in the west.”[404]

  It is probable that this rising was due to social discontent, and not
  to religious grievances, as the Act for the Suppression of the
  Monasteries was passed only in March and was not enforced until June,
  while the rising was early in April.

  It is curious that, according to Wriothesley’s Chronicle, there was
  also a rising in Somersetshire in April 1537[405]. The only allusion
  to this second rising in the Letters and Papers occurs on 13 May 1537,
  when Sir John St Lo requested Cromwell to contradict the report that
  the King was displeased with John Horner for “his taking the men
  imprisoned at Nunney” and causing them to be executed at Taunton[406].

  It is probable that there were two risings in Somerset, one in April
  1536, the other in April 1537. But it is possible that there was only
  one rising, that in April 1536. After that rising some prisoners were
  executed and others pardoned, but some may have remained in prison at
  Nunney, either because they were condemned to perpetual imprisonment
  or because they were never tried. In April 1537, when there were
  rumours of a rebellion in Devonshire and Cornwall, the magistrates may
  have become alarmed and executed the unfortunate prisoners out of
  hand. It is evident that the execution in April 1537 was hasty and
  irregular. If this second hypothesis were correct, Wriothesley must
  have misdated the entry in his Chronicle, or, hearing of the
  executions in Somerset in April 1537, he may have concluded that there
  had been a rising. It is simpler and involves less guessing to assume
  that there were two risings.




                               CHAPTER V
                       THE RISING IN LINCOLNSHIRE

  “How presumptuous then are ye, the rude commons of one shire, and that
  one of the most brute and beastly of the whole realm ... to find fault
  with your Prince?”[407]


So wrote Henry VIII to the men of Lincolnshire, and it must be confessed
that they were deservedly held in ill repute. The number of cases
relating to this county preserved among the Star Chamber Papers clearly
shows how little order was kept or justice regarded. There was less
excuse for lawlessness there than on the Borders, but the people seem to
have lived, among the great tracts of undrained fen, almost as wild a
life as the marchmen on their fells and mosses. On the other hand the
men of Lincolnshire were not trained to arms so strictly as the
mosstroopers. They were rather given to riots than to raiding, which
demands a certain amount of discipline. They were very poor and
ignorant, and regarded the gentlemen, their landlords and magistrates,
with suspicious dislike. In 1517 royal commissioners were appointed in
Lincolnshire to enforce the Inclosure Act of 1515[408]. It is rather
surprising that the county should have been included in the commission,
as the report showed that the enclosures were insignificant in extent
and had caused but little eviction[409]. The commission was probably
appointed in consequence of the shire’s turbulence, and it is to be
observed that such enclosure as there was had taken place in the
district which was the centre of the rising, the parts of Lindsey,
including Scrivelsby, Bolingbroke and Horncastle[410].

The gentlemen were quite as lawless as, and only a little better
educated than, the commons. The feuds of such noble families as the
Willoughbys not only caused endless discord among their friends and
enemies, but fomented dozens of petty hatreds among their dependents. A
good thriving feud, fairly rooted in disputed lands, would in the course
of years scatter as many seeds as would afforest half Lincolnshire. An
example of such a minor feud occurs in a complaint brought before the
Star Chamber by Thomas Moigne[411], of the Inner Temple[412], a
gentleman and lawyer of Lincolnshire. He was seised of the manor of
Wyfflingham, but his right to it was disputed by another gentleman,
George Bowgham of Haynton. On 20 Sept. 1534 Bowgham assembled about
forty people at his house. They seem to have been collected haphazard,
anyone who wanted a fight being welcome, and included a pardoner, a
weaver, and several husbandmen. They were armed and set out for
Wyfflingham, summoning others to join them by the way. Moigne was away
from home at the time, and when they reached his house they found no one
but his wife and one of his servants. They cried out that they would
seize all in the place, but as it does not appear that they carried out
their purpose it may be concluded that the lady of the house
successfully defended it against their attack[413]. The characteristic
feature of this outwardly pointless affair is that the rioters assaulted
Wyfflingham when the master was away. If a man could never leave home
without the fear that he might return to find his house in flames and
his wife abused, he would be likely to come to terms about the land. The
frequency of this sort of intimidation does not speak well for the men
of Lincolnshire. The story of the rising is even less pleasing.
Lincolnshire might have been expected to take the lead all through the
rebellion. The movement began there, and such signs of preparation as
can be discovered almost all concern Lincolnshire. The rumours
circulated there most freely, and may even have originated there. But if
it rose first, it was the first shire to lay down arms, and this at
discretion, without making any terms. So divided were the insurgents
among themselves by class-hatred, private feuds and mutual suspicion
that their host was never once in a state to offer battle to the most
feebly organised troops. In Lincolnshire alone were serious outrages
committed[414], but the rebels showed none of the determined enthusiasm
in the field which might have explained their ferocity. The gentlemen
were neither true to the King nor to the cause with which they really
sympathised. The commons showed all the worst qualities of an armed
mob,—they were savage, always swayed by the last speaker, and incurably
suspicious of their leaders, whom they seldom obeyed even when they had
chosen them themselves. The whole affair of Lincolnshire leaves the
impression that the men of the fens were loud speakers but poor
fighters, and almost confirms the King’s description. No doubt this
feeling is partly unjust. As will soon appear, they had many
disadvantages to face, and in particular had no such excellent boundary
to defend as the line of the Humber and Don, which was held by the
Yorkshiremen.

By Michaelmas 1536 three sets of royal commissioners had swooped down
upon Lincolnshire. The first, which had been at work since June, was the
commission for dissolving the smaller monasteries[415], the second was
to assess and collect the subsidy[416], and the third was a commission
of inquiry into the condition of the clergy and their fitness in morals,
education and politics for their office[417]. These provided grievances
for all classes of the community; the commons were outraged by the
suppression of the monasteries, the gentlemen were exasperated by the
fresh taxation, and the clergy were infuriated by the examination which
the commissioners forced them to undergo. They had been warned of the
coming inquiry at the commissary’s court held at Louth about three weeks
before Michaelmas, when the commissary’s scribe, one Peter, told the
priests “that his master bade them look to their books, for they should
have strait examination taken of them shortly after.”[418] The
visitation began at Bolingbroke on 20 Sept., and the priests seem to
have been roughly handled, for they came away fuming with indignation.
The parson of Conisholme said, “They will deprive us of our benefices
because they would have the first fruits, but rather than I will pay the
first fruits again I had liever lose benefice and all.”[419] Simon
Maltby, parson of Farforth, reported on his return home that the silver
chalices of the church were to be given to the King in exchange for tin
ones, and that therefore he and other priests had determined to strike
down the chancellor[420], and trusted in the support of their
neighbours[421]. The next visitation was to be held on Monday, 2 Oct.,
at Louth[422], and several of the priests from that district went to
Bolingbroke to see what the dreaded examination was like; they came away
declaring that they would not be so ordered or examined in their
learning[423].

It does not appear that Thomas Kendale, the vicar of Louth, was one of
those who went to Bolingbroke, but he was as bitterly opposed to the
commissioners as the rest. On Sunday, 1 Oct., he preached a sermon in
the parish church of Louth, in which he told his parishioners “that next
day they should have a visitation, and advised them to go together and
look well upon such things as should be required of them in the said
visitation.” The congregation understood very well what he meant, and as
they prepared to walk in procession after three silver crosses which
belonged to the village, Thomas Foster, a singing-man, cried out,
“Masters, step forth and let us follow the crosses this day: God knoweth
whether ever we shall follow them again.” The rumour of the vicar’s
sermon and Foster’s words spread quickly through the place. Robert
Norman, a roper, gave a penny to Jockey Unsained, otherwise John Wilson,
a carpenter, to carry the report, and after evensong an armed company
appeared at the choir door, and took the keys of the treasure house from
the churchwardens, saying that they knew the chief constable meant to
deliver the jewels to the Bishop’s chancellor next day. The keys were
given into the charge of Nicholas Melton, shoemaker, or Captain Cobbler,
as they called him, and a watch was kept in the church that night for
the first time, which was taken up again night after night until the end
of the rebellion[424].

The news of what had happened in Louth was heard the same night in the
little village of Kedington by Louth Park, the new home of William
Morland alias Burobe, late a monk in the dissolved monastery of Louth
Park. He had been employed since his eviction in carrying
“capacities”[425] to other expelled monks in various parts of the
country, and in the course of his travels he had heard many discontented
mutterings. On Monday, 2 Oct., after matins, he hastened to Louth to
find out the meaning of the “rufflings.” He went first to the church but
was not allowed to enter, for the commons who had been guarding the
jewels were discussing what course they should follow, and whether they
should ring the church bells and raise the alarm. Morland went to the
house of William Hert, butcher, whose brother Robert had been a
fellowmonk of his at Louth Park. The three sat down to breakfast “with
puddings,” in which they were joined by one Nicholas, a servant of Lord
Borough’s.

Meanwhile “the heads of the town” had gathered in the town-hall to
choose an officer for the coming year, as the custom was, and the
commons in the church were left to their own devices. The deliberations
in the town-hall and the breakfast at the butcher’s were both
interrupted by the sound of the church bells ringing out alarm. The
Bishop of Lincoln’s official, John Henneage, had arrived to conduct the
choosing of the new town officers. Hearing the tumult, Nicholas remarked
that some of those who ordered themselves after this fashion would be
hanged; to which the butcher replied, “Hold thy peace, Nicholas, for I
think as much as thou dost, but if they heard us say so, then would they
hang us.” Meanwhile the noise and “skrye” became so great that Morland
went out to see what was happening. He found that Henneage had alighted
at Robert Proctor’s door and had been seized there by an armed mob, who
were taking him to the church. Morland and other honest men helped him
to take refuge in the choir and locked the choir door. The commons were
shouting that he and all who had opposed them the night before must take
an oath that they would be true to the commons and do as they did, upon
pain of death. This oath was administered to Henneage, Morland, and the
honest men by Captain Cobbler, to whom Henneage had tried to speak
privately before being taken to the church. After the oath was taken the
people began to disperse, when again the common bell rang out and they
reassembled to seize John Frankishe, the Bishop of Lincoln’s registrar,
who had come to hold the dreaded visitation[426]. He was taken at the
Saracen’s Head, William Goldsmith’s house; his books were seized and
carried to the market-place, and John Taylor, a webster, brought a great
brand and lighted a fire in the Corn Hill. Other books were brought
out—copies of the New Testament in English and “Frythe, his book,”[427]
a fact which shows that the new creed was penetrating even to this
stronghold of conservatism—and the insurgents prepared to burn these
heretical works, together with the registrar’s papers[428]. Morland was
alarmed at their violence, and exhorted them from Guy Kyme’s doorway,
saying: “Masters, for the Passion of Christ, take heed what ye do, for
by this mischievous act which ye be about to do we shall be all casten
away ... will ye burn those books that ye know not what is in them?” He
prevailed so far that they took him and six other persons who could read
and set them up upon the High Cross, ordering them to read the
registrar’s papers. Morland got hold of the King’s commission, but
before he could make it out, the other people on the Cross, terrified by
the hideous clamour of the crowd below, threw down the papers that they
held, “and every man below got a piece of them, and hurled them into the
fire.”

Meanwhile Frankishe and Henneage had been brought to the market-place,
and the people forced the former to climb up to the highest part of the
Cross by a ladder. The poor man no doubt believed they would hang him,
and when he was on a level with Morland, he whispered, “For the Passion
of Christ, priest, save my life; and as for the books that be already
brent I pass not of them, so as a little book of reckonings ... might be
saved, and also the King’s Commission.” Morland promised to do his best,
took the book of reckonings, and, escaping from the Cross, succeeded in
handing the commission to Henneage. The commons cried out that Frankishe
must burn the papers himself, which he did. Then they demanded what book
it was that Morland carried; with great difficulty he persuaded them to
let him keep it. Then, worn out by the fatigues of the morning, he went
and had a drink. But when he attempted to restore the book to the
registrar, he was set upon by three or four hundred commons, who called
him “false, perjured harlot to the commons for saving that book, for
therein was contained that thing which should do them most tene (harm).”
The book was torn from him, and eventually came to the hands of Captain
Cobbler. Morland went to the registrar, explained what had happened, had
dinner with him, the registrar paying, and helped to smuggle him out of
the town. After this his friends warned him that his life was not safe
for the present, so for the rest of the day he kept away from the
commons[429].

Sixty parish priests who had assembled at Louth for the visitation were
now compelled to take the oath to the commons, and also to swear to ring
the common bells of their parishes and raise the people[430]. The heads
of the town, who were still in the town-hall, were summoned “by the name
of churls” to come and take the oath to God, the King, and the commons
for the wealth of Holy Church. Some forty of the rebels set out for
Legbourne, a small nunnery about two miles away, where the royal
commissioners were then at work. By the way they met one of Cromwell’s
servants, John Bellowe, who was especially detested by all the country.
Some of the commons, returning with him to Louth, met Sir William
Skipwith of Ormsby, whom they took back with them and compelled to take
their oath[431]. Captain Cobbler asserted that Sir William came in of
his own free will[432], but this is very improbable, as he had obtained
a grant of Markby Priory[433], and whatever the attitude of other
gentlemen may have been, he was probably entirely opposed to the rising.
After taking the oath he was allowed to go home[434].

The rest of the band went on to Legbourne, and there took the
commissioners and their servants, William Eleyn, John Browne, Thomas
Manby, and John Milsent[435]. They returned to Louth, taking on their
way one George Parker at the town’s end. The prisoners were very roughly
handled, “all the country crying to kill Bellowe.”[436] He and Milsent
were put in the stocks, and afterwards cast into prison in the custody
of Robert Browne, from which they were released a fortnight later by
Suffolk’s orders[437]. So intense was the hatred which they inspired
that a report flew about the country that one or other of them had been
blinded, wrapped in a raw cowhide, and baited to death with dogs. This
story was reported to the King on 6 October[438], and was frequently
repeated, but it is evidently untrue, for none of the rebels were
examined about the alleged murder, and the two men were afterwards
released.

While the prisoners were being brought in, Henneage had found an
opportunity of slipping away; in his flight he met Guy Kyme at the
town’s end, returning from Grimsby[439], but would scarcely stop to
speak to him for fear of the commons[440]. If Kyme was already in
communication with the disaffected in Yorkshire, he probably brought
news that they were not yet ready to rise, and that the outbreak must be
put off a week or so; but if this was his message he came too late. He
went into the town and tried to stay the commons, and his
representations were supported by others, but it was impossible to draw
back. Captain Cobbler, when urged to make no more business, replied that
“he had otherwise appointed,”[441] while Thomas Noble bade Kyme speak of
no stay or they would kill him[442]. The last event of this tumultuous
day was a proclamation from the High Cross that all the men of the
neighbourhood between the ages of sixteen and sixty must assemble there
on the morrow[443].

The news of the rising at Louth was received the same day by Sir Edward
Madeson and Lord Clinton, who sent it on to Lord Hussey[444]. The
commissioners for the subsidy, of whom Madeson was one, had intended to
sit at Caistor next day, but they arranged by messenger to meet outside
the town to see how events were shaping before they began to sit[445].
The priests who had been sworn at Louth carried the news all over the
countryside.

On Tuesday 3 October Caistor was filled with the constables and head men
of the wapentakes, who had come to meet the commissioners of the
subsidy, and with priests who had come to attend the commissary’s court,
to be held there that day. The commissioners held their preliminary
meeting on Caistor Hill, while in the town itself Anthony Williamson,
Harry Pennell and others “proclaimed aloud that the justices had a
commission from the King to take all men’s harness from them and bring
it to the castle of Bolingbroke.” The commons declared that they would
not give up their weapons. They went to the church and demanded of the
priests, who were assembled there “to the number of eight score,”
whether they would take the commons’ part. The priests received them
enthusiastically, went with them to the market-place, and with their own
hands burnt their books. The commons had already chosen George Hudswell
to be their leader, and the whole body of commons and priests marched
out to Caistor Hill to speak with the justices[446].

When they first assembled the commissioners believed Caistor to be quite
peaceful[447], but presently news was brought of a new factor in the
situation. The town of Louth had been astir since dawn; the common bell
rang and the people assembled, prepared to set out for Caistor, as had
been agreed the night before[448]. Four spiritual men, of whom William
Morland was one, and four laymen were chosen as their leaders, and they
marched off[449]. The justices on Caistor Hill heard that 10,000 men
were advancing upon them[450], a grossly exaggerated rumour, as there
were really not more than 3000[451]. Their first idea was flight, but,
at the suggestion of Mr Dalison, before setting out, they sent to summon
the commons of Caistor to meet them, so that they might explain why the
commission would not sit and urge them to go home before the arrival of
the men from Louth. The insurgents in Caistor would not come, but a
number of people had collected round the commissioners, a hundred or
more. To these they explained that the subsidy was to be assessed by the
people themselves, and that the rumours about robbing and pulling down
churches were false. Their eloquence did not make much impression, for
by this time the church bells of Caistor were ringing against them; and
when the people of Louth came in sight the commissioners turned their
horses and fled[452].

The Louth company would have come up sooner if they had not paused to
decide whether or no they should send on a hundred of their number to
confer with the justices. When it came to the point none of the
commonalty would consent to stay behind, but about a dozen of the best
mounted, with Morland among them, rode forward. On Caistor Hill they met
about 1000 men from Caistor “without weapons, but as they were wont to
do riding to markets and fairs.” While the two parties were discussing
the situation, they saw a company of about twenty horsemen, making for
the house of Sir William Askew, one of the commissioners. The
well-horsed men of Louth rode after them, and asked them to return and
speak to the commons for certain matters which they had in hand. Sir
William Askew was doubtful: “Trowest thou that if I should come amongst
them I should do any good, and be in surety of my life?” he asked.
Morland replied, “Let two of your servants lead me between them, and if
they do any hurt to your person then let me be the first that shall
die.” This, however, was not a very good security, as Sir William’s
servants were clearly on the side of the commons, and one of them
indignantly pointed out to Morland that as they talked Sir Thomas
Missenden had slipped away and escaped among the furze. Sir William
Askew, Sir Edward Madeson and Mr Booth went back with them to the main
body and were all sworn at once. Others of the commons had captured Sir
Robert Tyrwhit[453] and Thomas Portington[454], but Lord Borough, whom
they were particularly anxious to take, escaped, having a swift horse,
and so did Thomas Moigne. In their disappointment the commons turned on
Borough’s unfortunate servant Nicholas, crying that he had warned his
master. Morland says: “there were so many striking at him as he never
saw man escape such danger. At last when he had fled evermore backward
from them almost a quarter of a mile, saving himself always among the
horsemen, he was stricken down by the footmen of Louth and Loutheske.”
Morland went to him, confessed him, and had him conveyed to a safe place
and attended by surgeons, but he seems to have died of his
injuries[455].

The captured gentlemen asked why the commons were making this
insurrection. John Porman, a gentleman, replied “with a loud voice,”
that the commons were willing to take the King as Supreme Head of the
Church and that he should have the first fruits and tenths of every
benefice and also the subsidy granted to him; but he must take no more
money of the commons during his life and suppress no more abbeys; also
Cromwell, and the heretic Bishops of Canterbury, Lincoln, Rochester,
Ely, Worcester and Dublin (Cranmer, Longland, Hilsey, Goodrich, Latimer
and Browne) must be given up to the commons[456]. This answer seems to
embody the demands of the commons themselves, untouched by the influence
of the clergy or the gentlemen. They cared little for theological
questions, but opposed Cromwell’s reckless spoliations.

The insurgents carried their prisoners back to Caistor in triumph[457].
By this time their ranks had been swelled by companies from the
neighbouring villages. The men of Rasen, Fulstow, Kermounde, Rothwell,
and Thoresway were there. In the evening the main body, taking the
gentlemen with them, returned to Louth[458].

Tyrwhit, Askew, Portington and Madeson supped at Guy Kyme’s house, and
after supper were desired to write a letter to the King, begging for a
general pardon. It ran as follows:

  “Pleasith your highnes these be to advertise youre grace that this
  thirde day of october we by the vertue of your graciouse commission
  directe unto us and other for the levacion of your secund payment of
  the subsidie to your grace graunted by acte of parliament assembled us
  togeders at the towne of Caster within your countie of Lincoln for the
  execucion of the same. Wthere were assembled at oure cummyng within a
  myle of the seid towne xxiim of your trewe and faithefull (_lege peple
  crossed out_) subgietts and moo by oure estimmacion and the causion of
  ther said assemble was as they affirmed unto us that the comon voce
  and fame was that all the Jewells and goods of the Churches of the
  countrey shuld be taken from them and brought to your gracez councell
  and also that your seid lovyng and faithful subgets shulde be put of
  newe to enhaunsements and other importunate charges. Whiche they were
  not able to bere by reason of extreme pouertie and upon the same they
  did swere us first to be true to your grace and to take ther parts in
  off the comon welthe and so conveid us with them from the seid Caster
  unto the towne of Louth XII myles distante from the same (_mark of
  omission but no insertion_) where as we yet remayne unto they knowe
  forther of your graciouse plesure humbly besechyng youre grace to be
  good and graciouse boith to them and us to send us your graciouse
  letters of generall pardon orells we be in suche daunger that we be
  never like to se your grace nor owre owen houses as this berer can
  shewe to whom we beseche your highnes to gyff ferther credence. And
  ferther your seid subgietts haith desired us to writte to your grace
  that they be yours bodies lands and goods at all tymes where your
  grace shall commande (_torn_) for the defense of your person or your
  realme[459].

                                       Robt tyrwhyte      Willim Ayscugh
                                       Edward Madeson
                                       Thomas Portyngton.”

When this letter had been read to the commons, Sir Edward Madeson and
John Henneage were despatched after midnight to take it up to
London[460]. Many other messengers were hurrying through Lincolnshire
that night. Lord Borough, who had taken refuge at a friend’s house, sent
off news of the rising to the King[461], to the Earl of Shrewsbury at
Sheffield Park[462], who was the nearest representative of the royal
authority, and to Lord Darcy in Yorkshire[463]. Thomas Moigne sent a
message to Lord Hussey from his bailiff’s house at Usselby, where he had
taken refuge[464]. Lord Hussey wrote back asking for further news[465],
and despatched a messenger to warn the mayor of Lincoln[466].

After sending to Hussey, Moigne ventured to go home to Wyfflingham,
where his wife was lying dangerously ill. He found that all the commons
of the neighbourhood had joined those of Louth. He therefore ordered his
bows and arrows to be brought out. Word of this reached the commons, and
for his wife’s sake he was obliged to write to Sir William Askew for
protection. The house was watched and it was impossible for him to
escape[467].

On Wednesday, 4 October, the gentlemen who were held in captivity at
Louth persuaded the commons that they could do nothing more till an
answer was received to the letter they had sent to the King; and they
were so successful that Sir William Askew sent a message to Thomas
Moigne, which he received at 7 a.m., that he might keep the great court
next day at the Isle of Axholme. The lull, however, did not last long.
The bailiff of Wyfflingham presently came to tell Moigne that warning
bells were being rung at Rasen, and that the towns around were ringing
in answer. Moigne directed him to do nothing, and the reason of the
alarm was soon explained. A body of men arrived from Rasen bringing with
them Sir William Askew’s two sons and George Eton, a servant of Lord
Hussey[468]. Eton had been captured at Rasen, and two letters were found
in his possession, one from Lord Hussey to Tyrwhit and Askew, offering
to help to stay the country[469], the other from the mayor of Lincoln in
answer to Hussey’s offer of help[470]. These letters infuriated the
commons so much that they very nearly killed their three captives,—in
fact a report went about the country that Eton had been killed[471].
They were now being taken to Louth, and the men of Rasen insisted that
Moigne must take the oath and go with them.

They arrived at Louth after mass; Moigne had tried to persuade them on
the way to keep the letters secret, but they refused to do so, though he
prevailed upon them to conceal the name of the messenger. As soon as
their contents were known, the people rushed to the church and rang the
common bell, in spite of the efforts made to stop them by Morland and
the gentlemen. A rumour spread that Lord Borough was coming over Rasen
Moor with 15,000 men to destroy them. This increased the tumult, but at
length the gentlemen prevailed on the mob to muster at Julian Bower,
where they were to be divided into wapentakes and to choose
captains[472]. Morland was despatched to find out if there was any truth
in the report about Lord Borough[473]. After Morland had gone, Sir
Andrew Bilsby and Mr Edward Forsett were brought in by the men of
Alford[474]. The newcomers believed the report about Lord Borough, and
assured the gentlemen of it, but the commons’ alarm was now appeased and
they were induced to go to their dinners. The gentlemen hoped that Lord
Borough might arrive without bloodshed. In the afternoon the host
assembled again, and was divided into wapentakes, each having for
captain the commissioner who dwelt in it[475]. It was agreed that they
should muster next day and march on Lincoln, though the gentlemen
opposed the advance as far as they dared[476]. Letters were written to
Lord Hussey and to the mayor of Lincoln, calling upon them to take part
with the commons[477]. At supper-time Morland returned from Horncastle
with grave news. It was true that the report about Lord Borough was
unfounded, but Horncastle had risen, with evil results[478].

As early as Saturday 30 September unrest had manifested itself at
Horncastle[479]. The outbreak came on Tuesday 3 October in response to
the summons of Nicholas Leache, parson of Belchford, and his brother
William. The men of Horncastle marched to Scrivelsby Hall, and took Sir
Robert Dymmoke, his sons, one of whom was the sheriff, Mr Dighton of
Sturton, and Mr Sanderson. Sir William Sandon was also at the Hall, but
refused at first to obey the commons’ summons, until by threats he was
forced to come “with his cap in his hand.” In revenge for his delay the
commons carried him to Horncastle and imprisoned him in the Moot Hall.
This so far intimidated him that he went with the company to bring in
Thomas Littlebury and Sir John Copledike. Another party from Horncastle
went to Bolingbroke, where they found Dr Raynes, the obnoxious
chancellor of the Bishop, ill at a chantry priest’s house[480]. They
made him take the oath “lying sick in bed,” and spent the night there.
Apparently their first intention was to carry him to Horncastle, but he
was saved for the moment, partly by his servant, partly by bribing his
assailants[481].

The commons assembled at Horncastle early in the morning on Wednesday 4
October under the command of Edward Dymmoke, the sheriff, and despatched
two messengers, one to Bolingbroke to order the commons there to bring
in Dr Raynes and another priest called the surveyor, and the other to
Louth to ask for news of Lord Borough[482]. They mustered in a field
near the town, whither the chancellor was brought by one Gibson and John
Lincoln of Hagnaby, “a very rich man.”[483] His appearance was greeted
with a yell of hatred,—he was torn from his horse, set upon, and slain
with staves. His clothes and the money in his purse were divided among
the crowd by the sheriff[484]. The murder was the work of a frenzied
mob, and probably many took part in it. The names of three are
preserved,—William Hutchinson, William Balderstone and Brian Stonys. The
last named, in his deposition, laid the blame of the murder on the
priests and parsons in the crowd, declaring that they cried continually
“Kill him!” and that after he was slain “every parson and vicar in the
field counselled their parishioners to proceed in their journey, saying
they should lack neither gold nor silver.”[485] As Stonys, by his own
confession, was one of the murderers, his statement about the parsons
and vicars cannot be considered very reliable, as he may have been
trying to win a pardon by accusing those who were obnoxious to the
government. But it must be acknowledged that the character of the
Lincolnshire clergy does not appear to have been very high. William
Morland said that when he heard they were to be examined in their
learning he was glad, “thinking he might happen to succeed to the room
of some of the unlettered parsons.” He also said that “certain lewd
priests of those parts, fearing they should lose their benefices, spread
such rumours to persuade the common people that they also should be as
ill handled.”[486] This contemptuous way of speaking may have been
partly due to the slight esteem in which the regulars often held the
secular clergy; but besides this there is evidence that at least one of
the vicars had used threatening language against the chancellor before
the rising began[487]. In short it seems fairly clear that the clergy
who were present at his death did nothing to help him, and were on the
whole pleased by it.

The sheriff and Sir John Copledike were present when Raynes was killed,
and Morland, the messenger from Louth, arrived just in time to see
William Leache go to them and the other gentlemen and ask them to
deliver up to the commons Thomas Wolsey, who had been a servant of
Cardinal Wolsey, in exchange for Stephen Haggar. Wolsey was accused of
being a spy and was promptly hanged, in spite of Morland’s intercession
on his behalf[488].

The gentlemen were not present while this was taking place; they had
withdrawn about a mile, but after a time they returned and read out a
list of articles which they had drawn up, expressing the grievances of
the insurgents. The first two needed no explanation,—they required that
the King should remit the subsidy and let the abbeys stand. The next was
not so intelligible, as it expressed a grievance which affected only the
upper classes. The sheriff therefore addressed the crowd as follows:

  “Masters, there is a statute made whereby all persons be restrained to
  make their wills upon their lands, for now the eldest son must have
  all his father’s lands, and no person to the payment of his debt,
  neither to the advancement of his daughters’ marriages, can do nothing
  with their lands, nor cannot give his youngest son any lands.”

The commons had not before heard of the Statute of Uses, but when it was
explained to them in this way they were quite willing to include an
article requesting its repeal. The gentlemen next demanded of the people
whether they would ask for the heads of the lord Cromwell, four or five
bishops, the Master of the Rolls[489], and the Chancellor of the
Augmentations[490], “saying to them the lord Cromwell was a false
traitor and that he and the same bishops, the Master of the Rolls, and
the Chancellor of the Augmentations, whom they called two false pen
clerks, were the devisers of all the false laws. And the commons asked
the gentlemen, ‘Masters, if ye have them, would that mend the matter?’
And the gentlemen said, ‘Yea, for these be the doers of all mischief.’”
When these articles had been read, George Staines addressed the commons,
saying, “Masters, ye see that in all the time we have been absent from
you we have not been idle. How like ye these articles? If they please
you, say yea. If not, ye shall have them amended.” “The commons held up
their hands and said with a loud voice, ‘We like them very well’;”
whereupon Staines wrote them out “upon his saddle-bow.” He was believed
to be the deviser of the articles, which superseded other lists drawn up
before. A copy was given to Morland to carry back to Louth[491].

A message was brought by two of Lord Hussey’s servants, offering redress
if any of the commissioners had exceeded their commission, and
requesting the insurgents to send a deputation to speak with him[492].
The servants were asked whether Hussey was not raising the country
against them; they replied it was a false tale[493]. No doubt they dared
not tell the truth, which was that Hussey had sent messages to stay
Holland, and was in communication with Lord Borough, whom he had
promised to meet at Lincoln with 300 men[494]. The men of Horncastle,
however, were satisfied. They made the messengers take the oath and kept
them all night; but they sent three or four men to speak with
Hussey[495]. By the time they arrived he had discovered that he could
not trust his tenants, for when he sent bidding them to come and advise
with him, they replied they had more need of his advice and stayed at
home[496]. The only answer he could return to the Horncastle men was
that he would not be false to his prince, but he could do nothing
against them, as none of his people would take his part[497]. The
messengers spent the night at Sleaford, and returned next day to
Horncastle. On their arrival Hussey’s servants were sent home[498].

On Wednesday evening the man who had been sent to Louth came back to
Horncastle in time to see the bodies of Raynes and Wolsey “burying in
the churchyard.”[499]

William Morland had therefore plenty of news when he returned to Louth
at supper-time. The gentlemen appointed twelve men to be sent to Lord
Hussey and then went to bed meditating upon the murder of Raynes and
Wolsey, the Articles of the commons, and the answer of Lord Hussey. Nor
was the excitement even then at an end, for about midnight there was a
fresh alarm. The commons cried that the gentlemen had betrayed them, and
that they would kill them in their beds. However in the end they
resolved to prove them further, and the disturbance passed over[500].

The rising was now no mere local affair. The news of the chancellor’s
murder flew far and wide, and was the signal for a general arming.
Beacons were burnt along the south side of the Humber, which were seen
and understood in Yorkshire[501], and at 3 a.m. on Thursday morning it
was reported at Beverley that all Lincolnshire was up from Barton to
Lincoln[502]. Any gentleman who stayed at home was liable to be seized
by his tenants to be their captain. The people were particularly anxious
that the monks, for whom they were taking up arms, should share their
risks and expenses, and messages were sent to the greater monasteries,
which had not yet been touched by the King. The turn affairs were taking
was known by Wednesday at Barlings[503]; at Bardney[504], where the
abbot and his company were required to go with the commons; at
Kirkstead[505], where the abbot was told that if he and his monks came
not forth the house should be burnt over their heads, “upon which word,
about 4 of the clock in the evening the abbot, cellarer, bursar, and all
the monks of the abbey able to go, 17 in all, went to the outer gate
where they met a servant of the abbey, who said the host had pardoned
them for that night, but they must be at Horncastle next day at 11
o’clock”;[506] and at Grimsby, where “at night, when the commons came
home, Leonard Curtis came past the (Austin) Friars’ gate in a coat of
fence covered with leather, and with a long spear in his hand, and said
to two friars there, ‘It were alms to set your house of fire; therefore
command your prior that you come tomorrow.’ They desired him to go in
himself, and so he did, and commanded the prior to have his friars ready
when called, and afterwards the ‘sargyn’ brought the same command.”[507]

The need for captains was much felt by the commons in some parts, and
led to the first appearance of Robert Aske among the rebels. Before
Michaelmas the three Aske brothers had been staying at Ellerker in
Yorkswold with their sister Agnes and her husband William Ellerker.
Young Sir Ralph Ellerker was expected at the beginning of October for
some fox-hunting, but he was prevented from coming by his duties as
commissioner of the subsidy, so Robert Aske set out for London, in order
to be there about the beginning of the law term, accompanied by Robert
Aske, his brother John’s eldest son, and another nephew. They crossed
the Humber at Barton, five miles from Ellerker, and heard from the
ferryman of the commons’ rising and the capture of the commissioners. On
landing they set out for Sawcliff, eight miles away, to spend the night
at the house of Thomas Portington. They had only gone two miles when
they were stopped at Ferriby by George Hudswell and a band of horsemen,
who made them take the usual oath—to be true to God, the King and the
Commonwealth. They were allowed to go to Sawcliff, where they found that
Thomas Portington had been taken by the commons and was still with them.
On this Aske became anxious to go back to Yorkshire, but on his way to
the nearest ferry some of the commons met with him “and so intreat him
that he was glad to repair again to Sawcliff.” There he passed the
night—that is the night of Wednesday 4 October[508].

On Thursday 5 October the rebels were early astir. Before daybreak a
party of them appeared at Sawcliff, came to Robert Aske’s bedside and
insisted that he and his three nephews[509] should instantly go with
them. Aske induced them to let the three young men go into Yorkshire
because two of them was heir apparents. But it seems possible there were
more pressing reasons than mere humanity; did Aske send no messages by
them? The commons carried him off to join a company of some two hundred
men who were mustering within three miles of Sawcliff and had no
gentlemen or captains. They spent the morning in raising Kirton Soke,
which had been warned against them ineffectively by Lord Borough. Aske
went along Humber side with the horsemen while the footmen went inland,
and they met again at Kirton at three in the afternoon[510]. The
meeting-place appointed for all the different bands that day was
Hambleton Hill, where in the afternoon assembled the host of Yarborough
Hundred under command of Sir Robert Tyrwhit[511]; Thomas Moigne with 200
men[512]; the men of Louth, who had mustered at Towse Athyenges (Towse
of the Lynge) Heath[513], and those of Horncastle, who had met between
Horncastle and Scrivelsby[514]. The last named brought with them a silk
banner with Lyon Dymmoke’s arms, which they had taken out of Horncastle
church the day before[515]. All the monks of Kirkstead, except the
abbot, joined the host, the cellarer and the bursar mounted and with
battle-axes, the rest on foot. Their serving-men were also carried off
by the rebels. The bursar brought money and provisions, and they were
all welcomed by the sheriff. The entire muster was estimated to be
10,000 strong. On their way one company had come upon Francis Stonar,
priest and surveyor to Lady Willoughby, perhaps the surveyor whom the
people of Horncastle wanted to take the day before. He was roughly used,
but the gentlemen saved his life, and he ransomed himself by paying £100
to their funds[516]. When all had met at Hambleton Hill the general
voice was to march on Lincoln, but Moigne made a speech reminding the
people that now was the time to sow wheat and till the fields for the
next year, and he therefore advised them to send only a small number
forward to represent them. Just then he was told that Nicholas
Girlington, Robert Askew, and one Aske wished to speak with him. He knew
the two former, and also knew that Aske was a lawyer. Believing they
would be on the side of peace, he wished to speak to them alone, but the
commons would not allow it[517]. He told Aske that they would lie that
night at Rasen Wood, and next day at Dunholm Heath, and directed the
commons of Kirton to meet them at Dunholm. Aske took this message to his
company at Kirton. He spent the night at Sawcliff and did not rejoin the
Kirton men again[518].

The host marched from Hambleton Hill to Market Rasen, and there it
became necessary to make arrangements for the night. Some slept in the
fields about the town, others made themselves more comfortable. A party
led by Edmund, “old Lady Tailbois’ chaplain,” was advancing to the
meeting-place when they met Matthew Mackerell, Abbot of Barlings[519],
between Barlings monastery and Barlings Grange. They made him lodge them
for the night and he gave them beef and bread and “the meat that was on
the spit for his brethren’s supper.” Numbers of men entered forcibly and
slept in the chambers of the monastery and “on the hay mowes” in the
barns. The two leaders, whose names Mackerell did not know, commanded
him to join them with all his brethren. The abbot offered to go with
them and sing a litany; he pointed out that it was contrary to his vow
to wear harness, yet the leaders still swore he should go. They
terrified him so much that when he turned to the altar to hear mass, he
trembled till “he could unnethe say his service.” In answer to their
threats he gave them each a crown to buy horses. Thomas Kirton of
Scotherne then came in, and said that he had met a band of horsemen
coming to burn the monastery, but that he had saved it by showing them
the men sleeping in the hay. He brought a message from Mr Thomas
Littlebury, who advised the abbot to please “this ungracious company”;
and he alarmed the poor abbot still more by telling him how “Mr
Sampoull, a man of four score,” had been taken from his bed to be sworn
and forced to send his son with them[520].

If things were moving fast in Lincolnshire, they were not standing still
in London. Madeson and Henneage, who had left Louth at midnight on
Tuesday 3 October, arrived at court about 9 a.m. on Wednesday 4
October[521]. They brought the first definite news of the outbreak. The
King at once perceived that the matter was grave. So great was his
anxiety that it even overcame his pride, and he sent, very reluctantly,
for the Duke of Norfolk, who was living at Kenninghall in Norfolk, in a
state of semi-disgrace for his opposition to Cromwell. The gentlemen in
attendance at court were ordered to make ready to march against the
insurgents under the command of Richard Cromwell, the Lord Privy Seal’s
nephew. Horses were pressed for them by the Lord Mayor of London, who
went from stable to stable, taking the horses of both foreign merchants
and citizens. This vigorous measure aroused indignation, and as the King
did not permit much to be said about the rising in Lincolnshire, the
sufferers were told that the Count of Nassau was coming on a visit to
England with a great company of men but no horses[522]. The King’s
uneasiness could only be increased by the letters which must have
arrived on Wednesday evening from Hussey to Cromwell[523], enclosing the
commons’ summons to him, and from the Earl of Shrewsbury[524], who sent
word of Lord Borough’s flight and the commons’ threats to destroy his
house at Gainsborough if he would not return and lead them[525]. The
Earl had sent out notices to the neighbouring gentlemen, summoning them
to assemble on Thursday at Mansfield with as many men as they could
collect to march against the rebels[526].

The King pressed on the preparations in London as fast as possible. He
was said to distrust the city, and took from it men and horses to
strengthen not only his army but also the Tower “which is his last
refuge.” This action shows the uncertainty under which he laboured: he
did not know how much he might have to fear. His daughters, Mary and
Elizabeth, were summoned to court, as if he felt it was not safe to let
them be out of his sight, and Mary was treated with more kindness and
respect than she had known for a long time. “Madame Marie is now the
first after the Queen, and sits at table opposite her, a little lower
down, after first having given the napkin for washing to the King and
Queen.” It was said that when the first news of the rebellion came Queen
Jane threw herself on her knees before the King and implored him to
restore the abbeys, saying that this was a judgment for their putting
down. “But he told her, prudently enough, to get up, and he had often
told her not to meddle with his affairs, referring to the late queen,
which was enough to frighten a woman who is not very secure.”[527]

Letters missive were sent out to summon musters[528], and a proclamation
was issued to delay for a year the enforcement of the statute regulating
the size of woollen cloths, in order to appease the discontent among the
clothmakers[529]. The only person really pleased by the news was the
Duke of Norfolk. He did not believe the disturbance was anything of
importance and doubted that the rebels could raise 5000 men, but he
hoped that he could use the opportunity to overthrow Cromwell and bring
himself back into favour. Consequently he hurried up to court on the 5th
in very good spirits[530].

Cromwell, on the first coming of the news, despatched two emissaries of
his own to Lincolnshire to gather information[531]. They were Sir
Marmaduke Constable and Robert Tyrwhit[532]. With them went John
Henneage, who had carried the commons’ first petition to the King[533].
At 9 o’clock on Thursday morning they reached Stilton and sent in their
first report. The commons were said to have been 10,000 strong on
Tuesday. Their oath was repeated to the writers by “an honest priest”
who had been forced to take it. It ran: “Ye shall swear to be true to
Almighty God, to Christ’s Catholic Church, to our Sovereign Lord the
King, and unto the Commons of this realm; so help you God and Holydam
and by this book.” Constable and Tyrwhit had delivered the letters of
summons to several of the gentlemen. They intended to push on to
Lincoln, sending a letter to the Lord Steward (Shrewsbury) from
Stamford[534]. At eight o’clock that night they wrote again from
Ancaster. They had learnt that the rebels were now over 20,000 and
expected to be in Lincoln on Saturday. Their petition was that they
might receive pardon for rising, that holydays might be kept as before,
that the religious houses might stand, and that they might be taxed no
more; “they would also fain have you,” i.e. Cromwell. The messengers
were on their way to Lord Hussey[535]. They arrived at Sleaford late at
night, and delivered their letter[536], but they found Lord Hussey quite
unable to carry out the orders it contained. He had sent forward some
armed servants to Colwick, close to Nottingham, intending to follow
them, but when the people heard that he was about to leave them they
rang the common bell and about a hundred assembled outside his gate and
refused to disperse until they had seen him, crying, “Alas, we shall be
brent and spoiled, and all for lack of aid.” Lord Hussey came out and
asked what they wanted. They answered, “Aid,” saying he was their only
aid and that they heard he would leave them. He replied he would come
and go as he pleased, and “‘bade them walk home, knaves,’ trusting to
see them hanged shortly.” He noticed one Bug “with a bill in his hand”
and asked what he wanted. Bug answered, “In faith, my lord, to take your
part, to live and die with you.” Hussey called him “a naughty busy
knave,” and sent them all away “amazed,” but they declared they would
not let him go, and watched his house[537]. Cromwell’s messengers dared
not stay in this dangerous neighbourhood, and left Sleaford at
midnight[538]. Then they separated, Henneage and Tyrwhit going back to
the King, while Constable went on towards Yorkshire. They left with
Hussey several letters for the knights and gentlemen, who had been
“taken” by the commons[539].

Next morning, Friday 6 October, Hussey wrote to Shrewsbury, saying that
he was so beset that he could not leave his house, though he was anxious
to join the King’s forces, asking for orders, and promising to escape
whenever he could[540]. He sent this off by a trusty servant and at the
same time despatched another servant, George Cutler, to the Louth
rebels, with a reply to the deputation which had waited on him the day
before. Cutler was also to deliver the letters to the gentlemen with the
host, and Hussey bid him “say anything to get himself away.”[541] The
host was marching from Market Rasen to Lincoln, but they had not gone
two miles when disputes broke out. The gentlemen complained that the
commons were unruly and said “they should be ordered whether they would
or no”; in the end the commons submitted and the host went on. A rumour
spread that Lord Borough would join them that day, and though there was
no truth in it the commons were much encouraged[542]. The next halt was
at Dunholm Lings, where the men of Kirton Soke were waiting, as Aske and
Moigne had appointed[543]. Here Cutler came to them[544]. Perhaps the
gentlemen were not too well pleased to receive the King’s letters at
such a time. At any rate Sir William Askew questioned Cutler as to
whether Lord Hussey were at home and would take their part; he replied
that “he and all his house were at the commons’ command.”[545] In spite
of this prudent answer he was carried to Lincoln with the host[546]. The
rebels had sent on a party before them to prepare lodgings in the town,
and when they arrived they were well received. The officers of the city
gave orders that provisions should be sold to them at reasonable
rates[547]. They had so far been without artillery, but in Lincoln they
found some guns which, it was believed, had come from Grimsby[548]; had
these anything to do with Guy Kyme’s business at Grimsby the week
before?

The gentlemen lodged in the Close and the commons in the town[549]. The
first to arrive was the company from Louth, and they were joined by the
commons of the city with whom they spent a pleasant time in spoiling the
palace of the hated Bishop[550]. The host of Horncastle came to Lincoln
either this day or early on the morrow. On the march the Abbot of
Barlings had met them at Langwith Lane End. In reply to repeated orders
he brought them “beer, bread, cheese and six bullocks,” and was
accompanied by his brethren. When he had given the provisions to the
sheriff, he begged that he and his monks might be allowed to go home,
but the leaders resolved that six of them must go with the host next
day, “seeing they were tall men.” The abbot was given a passport
permitting him to gather victuals for the commons; his secret intention,
as he said, was to use this to slip out of the country[551].

The sheriff summoned the people of Boston to meet “the great host” at
Ancaster on Sunday 8 October[552]. On receiving this letter the whole of
Holland rose, and the gentlemen were compelled to take the oath, under
pain of having their goods seized. Two thousand men rose in Boston, and
it was believed that the whole number of the rebels was 40,000
“harnessed men and naked men clad in bends of leather.” Those who were
latest to rise said “they would do as their neighbours did, for they
could not die in a better quarrel than God’s and the King’s.” The list
of grievances which they presented to the gentlemen was not quite the
same as the one drawn up at Horncastle. The reforms which they desired
were (1) that the Church of England should have its old accustomed
privileges without any exaction; (2) that suppressed houses of religion
should be restored, “except such houses as the King hath suppressed for
his pleasure only”; (3) that the bishops of Canterbury, Rochester,
Lincoln, Ely, Bishop Latimer and others and the Lord Privy Seal, the
Master of the Rolls, and the Chancellor of the Augmentations, should be
delivered up to the commons, or else banished the realm; (4) that the
King should demand no more money of his subjects except for the defence
of the realm[553].

Cromwell had sent Christopher Askew[554], one of the King’s gentlemen
ushers, to gather news. On Friday he reported that he had advanced into
the country as far as he dared, apparently to Spalding. His report is a
mixture of hearsay and fact; like the gentlemen of Holland he estimated
the number of the rebels at 40,000 or more,—10,000 or 12,000 well
harnessed, and 30,000 more, “some harnessed and some not.” The
journeymen were deserting their masters, and the towns were left
defenceless. “About Stamford, Spalding and Peterborough they are very
faint in rising against the rebels.” In fact they were readier to take
the other side, but Mr Harrington showed them the King’s commission and
they were pacified and glad that the King was coming. Askew advised that
more commissions of this kind should be sent. The people murmured among
themselves that if they held not together they would be undone, “for it
is reported that they shall pay a third part of their goods to the King
and be sworn what they are worth, and if they swear untruly other men
will have their goods.” He had heard the rumours that some had gone to
burn Lord Borough’s house, and that Bellowe had been baited to death. He
also said “they have made a nun in your abbey Legbourn and an abbot at
Louth Park.” But this seems to be a mistake, for, unlike the Yorkshire
rebels, the commons of Lincolnshire made no attempt to restore the
suppressed houses. Mr Harrington had commanded the Prior of Spalding to
raise as many men as he could for the King, “and he answered he was a
spiritual man and would make none.” Askew had heard that Hussey’s
tenants would not rise for him, and it was said he would be taken that
night[555].

The last report was well founded. Hussey’s servant Cutler met a spy of
Shrewsbury’s when the rebels took him to Lincoln. Perhaps he did not
know this man as a friend; at any rate he told him that Hussey was about
to join the rebels[556]. He managed to leave the town that night and
warned his master that the gentlemen were going to send to bring him
in[557]. Thanks to this news Hussey escaped in the night disguised as a
priest[558]. He was just in time, for on Saturday 7 October the host at
Lincoln sent out several bands to find and bring in gentlemen[559]. Five
hundred men under Sir Christopher Askew were despatched for Lord
Hussey[560]. Before they arrived, Anthony Irebye, one of the
commissioners of Holland, brought to Sleaford a troop of about eight
score men which he had raised to serve the King. He found that Hussey
had fled, but in obedience to a letter from him the little troop
afterwards joined the King’s forces[561]. When Sir Christopher Askew
reached Sleaford he was met by the principal people of the town,
including Robert Carre, who begged him not to spoil their houses. Sir
Christopher promised to protect them, and made them join his company.
Hearing that Lord Hussey had fled, the rebels began to cry, “Fire the
house!” but their captain spoke with Lady Hussey and satisfied his
followers by making her promise to follow her husband and bring him
back[562]. George Hudswell of Caistor was appointed to accompany her,
but they did not start that day[563]. After the company had set out for
Lincoln, a tempest of rain drove them back, and they took refuge from
the weather in the Bishop of Lincoln’s castle at Sleaford, where they
spent the night, doing much damage. Lady Hussey gave them
provisions,—beer, salt fish, and bread[564]. Next morning (Sunday 8
October) she sent more food to them, and offered Sir Christopher twenty
angel nobles, which he refused to take[565]. While the rebels made their
way back to Lincoln, she and Hudswell set out in search of Lord Hussey,
whom they found at Colwick[566]. He refused to go with them to join the
rebels at Lincoln, and ordered them to follow him to Shrewsbury, who was
to hold a muster at Nottingham next day[567]. Hussey had received an
answer to his letter of the 6th which might well make him anxious.
Misled by the report of the spy who had been told by Cutler that Hussey
was wavering if not actually pledged to the rebels[568], Shrewsbury had
become suspicious of his loyalty. He wrote: “My lord, for the old
acquaintance and familiarity between us I will be plain with you. You
have always shown yourself an honourable and true gentleman, and no man
may do the King higher service in those parts by staying these misruled
persons and finding means to withdraw the gentlemen and men of substance
from among them, when the commons could do small hurt. For I assure you,
on my troth, all the King’s subjects of the counties of Derby, Salop,
Stafford, Worcester, Leicester and Northampton will be with me tomorrow
to the number of 40,000 and I trust you will keep us company.”[569] In
the face of these suspicions it is no wonder that Hussey was angry with
his wife when she implored him to return to the rebels. He rode to the
Lord Steward with what speed he might.

The rebels stayed at Lincoln all Saturday. Early in the morning they
mustered at New Port, and it was agreed to send another letter to the
King, as no answer had been received to the first[570]. The men of
worship held a council at Mile Cross towards Nettleham apart from the
host, and drew up a new set of articles, because they considered those
made at Horncastle “wondrous unreasonable and foolish.”[571] As a matter
of fact the new articles seem to have differed very little from the old,
unless others had been inserted among the Horncastle articles besides
the four given above. The wandering bands brought in gentlemen from the
surrounding country,—Sir John Sutton, Robert Sutton and the
Disneys[572]. The Abbot of Barlings came with six of his canons, all in
harness; but he only delivered his men and went straight home
again[573]. Several monks came from Bardney[574], and those pressed at
Kirkstead were still with the host.

On Sunday 8 October the host mustered at Lincoln; they had changed Lyon
Dymmoke’s banner for a white cloth to which was pinned a picture of the
Trinity painted on parchment[575]. The commons were growing impatient at
the delay, but the gentlemen were undecided as to what course of action
they should follow, and wished to hear more of the King’s preparations
before committing themselves to an advance. The great muster on Ancaster
Heath had been appointed for this day, but the gentlemen postponed it,
saying they must await the King’s answer[576].

The articles which had been prepared the day before were read aloud to
the whole host by George Staines, who offered himself as a messenger to
take them to the King[577]. No complete copy of these articles has been
preserved, but they seem to have been seven in number, as follows:

  (1) that the King should demand no more taxes of the nation, except in
  time of war.

  (2) that the Statute of Uses should be repealed.

  (3) that the Church should enjoy its ancient liberties and that tenths
  and first fruits should not be taken from the clergy by the
  government.

  (4) that no more abbeys should be suppressed.

  (5) that the realm should be purged of heresy, and the heretic
  bishops, such as Cranmer, Latimer, and Longland should be deprived and
  punished.

  (6) that the King should take noblemen for his councillors, and give
  up Cromwell, Riche, Legh and Layton to the vengeance of the commons,
  or else banish them.

  (7) that all who had taken part in the insurrection should be
  pardoned[578].

The host accepted the articles, but they were not yet despatched to the
King.

The gentlemen had established themselves apart from the commons; their
lodgings were in the Close and their meeting-place was the Chapter House
of the Cathedral, where on Sunday evening they received two letters of
the greatest moment. The first was brought by William Woodmansey; it was
under the common seal of the town of Beverley and addressed to the
people of Lincolnshire. It informed them that, hearing of their rising,
the townsmen of Beverley had also taken up arms; they wished to know the
Lincolnshire articles and were ready to send help. The gentlemen were
obliged to reply, and wrote a letter enclosing the new articles. The
papers were entrusted to Guy Kyme and Thomas Donne, who probably set out
for Yorkshire with Woodmansey next morning. Meanwhile the news from
Beverley had spread, and the whole city of Lincoln was humming with
excitement. The commons’ one thought was to set forward without delay.
Their rear was safe,—why should they loiter? The leaders still insisted
that they must wait for the King’s reply. In the midst of these
discussions two more messengers arrived and came before the meeting in
the Chapter House. They were from Halifax, and brought word that their
country was up and ready to do as the men of Lincolnshire did. It was a
wonder that the gentlemen themselves were not carried away by the
surging enthusiasm of the commons. When they had already risked so much
they might in that moment of triumph have brought themselves to stake
all. But they still counselled prudence. They assured their followers
that it would be high treason to march against the King’s troops before
the King’s answer came. It speaks poorly for the intelligence of the
host that this ridiculous reason was enough to turn them from their
purpose. George Staines was at length despatched to London with the new
set of articles. The commons were heartily tired of Lincoln and
inaction, but they consented to stay there another day on the
understanding that they should be allowed to spoil the goods of any man
who did not join the host when summoned[579].


                           NOTES TO CHAPTER V

  Note A. The conduct of the Percys in Northumberland was outrageous
  enough, but, as good luck would have it, no one was murdered. Moreover
  the Percys and the thieves of Tynedale were responsible for this, not
  the gentlemen and commons of the county as a body.

  Note B. When one of the lesser monasteries was suppressed, the monks
  were given a choice of two courses; they might either be transferred
  to one of the large houses of the same Order, which was not yet
  suppressed, or they might receive a paper from the King by which they
  were released from their vows and received licence to begin life over
  again as ordinary laymen. These were called “capacities.”

  Note C. Holinshed identified the Abbot of Barlings with Captain
  Cobbler. There is no hint of this in any contemporary chronicle, and
  the most cursory reference to the State Papers shows that it was a
  mistake. Nevertheless the error has been very generally copied[580].

  Note D. There is a curious story that Shrewsbury was very uneasy lest
  he should be accused of treason for levying men to resist the rebels.
  It is first told by Holinshed (1577), but no foundation for it can be
  discovered in contemporary chronicles and documents. Holinshed
  asserted that he had been told it by “men of good credit that were
  then present.” According to this story, the Earl consulted his friends
  and legal advisers as to whether he might lawfully muster men. They
  replied that he might do so. He retorted, “Ye are fools. I know it in
  substance to be treason, and I would think myself in a hard case, if I
  thought I had not my pardon coming.” Thereupon he sent out orders for
  the muster, and wrote to the King begging for a pardon. The King sent
  him both a pardon and thanks. The men assembled expecting the Earl to
  lead them to join the rebels, but he took a solemn oath before them
  all that he was true to the King alone[581]. The baselessness of this
  story appears when it is compared with Shrewsbury’s letters. On 4 Oct.
  he sent news of the rising and asked for orders[582]; at the same time
  he sent out a summons to the neighbouring gentlemen to muster at
  Mansfield next day[583]. On the 6th he acknowledged the receipt of the
  King’s letters missive, containing orders to assemble his men, and
  described the musters which he had appointed[584]. Cromwell wrote a
  flowery letter of compliments and thanks to him on the 9th, but
  without a suggestion that any pardon was needed[585]. The King sent
  him further orders and a new commission on the 15th, but without
  hinting that he had been over zealous[586]. Noblemen were expected to
  suppress riots without waiting for orders, and it was made a charge
  against Hussey that he did not muster his men at the first alarm. The
  only foundation which there can be for Holinshed’s story is some vague
  memory that the Earl’s attitude at the beginning of the rising
  awakened doubt. He was a devout man, and very much opposed to
  innovations in any form[587]. Personal loyalty kept him true to the
  King, but there is every reason to believe that he had much stronger
  sympathy for the rebels than for Cromwell.

  Note E. The reduplication of names is very confusing. Sir Marmaduke
  Constable was the cousin of Sir Robert Constable of Flamborough, not
  his brother or his son, although they both bore the same name. Robert
  Tyrwhit was a different person from Sir Robert Tyrwhit, the
  commissioner who was taken at Caistor. Christopher Askew, again, was a
  different person from Sir Christopher Askew, one of the Lincolnshire
  gentlemen who was most enthusiastic in the rebels’ cause.




                               CHAPTER VI
                      THE FAILURE OF LINCOLNSHIRE


By Saturday 7 October the preparations in London were fully under weigh.
Letters under the Privy Seal were sent out. They announced that the King
purposed to advance against the rebels in person, and summoned the
noblemen to whom they were directed to meet him at Ampthill each with a
specified force. Orders were sent out to the ports to keep watch;
arrangements were made for posts; lists were drawn up of those who were
to march against the rebels, those who were to attend the King and those
who were to guard the Queen[588]. Sir William Fitzwilliam, the Lord
Admiral, was despatched to Ampthill. He reported that the country was
loyal as far as Godalming and Guildford, and that he had no difficulty
in raising men, but that he would only take horsemen as recruits, there
being such need of haste[589].

The news of the insurrection was first sent abroad by Chapuys, who
wrote to the Emperor on 7 October. The ambassador believed that the
insurgents were numerous and the disaffection widespread, but he did
not think that they could hold out long, as they lacked both money and
a leader. Nevertheless the King seemed dejected, great preparations
were going forward, and Cromwell was said to be afraid. His nephew
Richard Cromwell had taken quantities of arms from the Tower, and was
pressing men, even the masons at work on Cromwell’s house; the
sanctuary men were being imprisoned for fear they should join the
rebels. The Duke of Norfolk dined that day with the Bishop of
Carlisle—a special occasion for which wine was procured from
Chapuys—and requested his host to help to make some large purchases of
cloth which the government was organising to allay the discontent
among the clothmakers. The Bishop promised to contribute, and many
wealthy merchants and bishops were compelled to do the same.
Immediately after dinner Norfolk set out for his own country to raise
men for the muster at Ampthill and to prevent disturbances[590].

Reports of the rebels’ strength and the unsettled state of the country
south of Lincolnshire poured in upon Cromwell[591]. Lord Clinton had
been despatched to the Midlands with letters missive summoning the
gentlemen to keep order in their own neighbourhoods and to raise men for
the King, who were to meet the Earl of Shrewsbury at Nottingham on
Monday. The Earls of Rutland and Huntingdon were ordered to join him.
Clinton was unable to deliver the letters to the Lincolnshire gentlemen,
and wrote on the 7th that Hussey would probably be taken that day[592].
There was a rumour that Clinton had raised 500 men who immediately went
over to the enemy[593]. Two friars of Grimsby sent Cromwell information
against the prior of the Austin Friars, who had supplied the rebels with
money[594]. The gentlemen of Holland reported the rising of their
country on Saturday[595]. Sir William Hussey, who seems to have escaped
from Sleaford at the same time as his father, rode straight to London
with only one servant. By the wayside they heard the people “both old
and young, praying God speed the rebellious people of Lincolnshire, and
saying that if they came that way they should lack nothing that they
could help them to.”[596] In Windsor itself a priest and a butcher were
hanged for expressing sympathy with the rebels[597]. On Friday Sir
Edward Madeson, who brought the commons’ letter to the King, was
examined before the Council, and told them what he knew of the
rebels[598], which, as he had left Lincolnshire on Tuesday night, was
not very much.

George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, the Lord Steward, was at Hardwick in
Sherwood on Saturday 7 October[599]. On this day Sir Arthur Darcy
arrived at his camp. He had been sent by his father from Templehurst
with letters which reported the unsettled state of the country, the
risings in Lincolnshire and Northumberland, and asked for orders, money
and ordnance[600]. He found the Lord Steward “sore crassyd” with
sickness, but labouring to muster all his powers at Nottingham on Monday
next. Sir Arthur saw a chance of distinguishing himself in the coming
conflict, and his father’s messages, essential as they were to the
safety of the north, were at once thrown to the winds. He wrote to Lord
Darcy, telling him that when the Lord Steward gave him a message for the
King, “I said I would be no messenger when the King should need; and
further that I knew well that he being at so near a point to try his
friends that I would be with him, thoff I had but my page and my man.”
He therefore asked that his men might be sent up to him “and I shall
there be found near the Talbot.” In a postscript he drops from his
heroics to domestic details, “Remember a truss bed and my harness for me
and my men.”[601] The spy who had been at Lincoln told Shrewsbury that
the rebels were about 40,000 strong, but only 16,000 in harness. He
reported the muster to be held at Ancaster, where it was said that
Hussey would join the rebels. He had promised to return to Lincoln and
was about to do so. His watchword was “Remember your promise.”[602]
Shrewsbury at Hardwick and Rutland, who had already arrived at
Nottingham with his men, were both writing to the King for money and
ordnance, “for money is the thing that every poor man will call
for.”[603]

Fitzwilliam reached Ampthill on Sunday 8 October and “planted his
standard and guydon.” Richard Cromwell was again at the Tower and took
out “34 little falconets of those made by the King last year”; he set
out with them, but the roads were so heavy with the recent rain that
when they had gone no more than a mile into the country the horses broke
down[604]. Thirteen of the guns were sent back at once, and in the end
only sixteen could go forward, together with the necessary stores and
supply of weapons[605]. Richard Cromwell pushed on without waiting for
the guns. He reached Ware that night, meeting by the way some recruits
and two fugitives from Lincolnshire, who told him the rebels were 40,000
strong, that their numbers were ever growing, and that they were
encamped in strong positions[606].

As the reports of the insurrection became more and more alarming, the
King altered his plans. His first idea was that Shrewsbury could easily
dispose of the rebels, and that he himself would then make a military
promenade through the district. The Duke of Norfolk had been sent to
Ampthill “to exercise the office of High Marshal, and to set the army
which shall be then arrived in order, that the King on his repair
thither on Monday[607] may view them and dismiss them from time to time
with thanks and good entertainment.”[608] But it was now evident that
the campaign would be no mere picnic, and the King was unwilling to
expose his royal person to its possible dangers, while the need for
haste was so great that it would be unwise to hamper the army by the
delays which were inevitable if the King accompanied it. At the same
time he did not consider it safe to trust the command to the Duke of
Norfolk if he himself were not there, as Norfolk was suspected of
leanings towards the old religion[609]. It was impossible to send
Cromwell, for while on the one hand he was no general, on the other he
was so unpopular that it would have been difficult to find a dozen men
who would follow him. The King therefore had recourse to his old comrade
Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, who was one of the few persons Henry
regarded with something like friendship and confidence. Suffolk had gone
to his own country to prevent disturbances, when a message overtook him
that he was to set out at once for Huntingdon, where he would find
Richard Cromwell with the stores from the Tower. On receiving these
orders he lost no time. Leaving the force he had mustered to follow him,
he turned northwards, riding all night[610].

Meanwhile letters reached Norfolk countermanding his orders, directing
him to send his son, the Earl of Surrey, and his horses to the Duke of
Suffolk, and to remain himself in Norfolk to stay the country[611]. He
must have suspected that such a slight was due to Cromwell’s jealousy,
and he wrote at once a vigorous remonstrance pointing out that if he
were to send away his son and his horses he could do little towards
staying the people. He declared that rather than “sit still like a man
of law” he would set out on Tuesday unless he received positive orders
to the contrary. This letter was despatched at 1 a.m. on Sunday 8
October from Easterford[612]. By 6 p.m. on the same day Norfolk had
reached Stoke and found so many seditious rumours by the way that he had
become reconciled to the idea of remaining in that part of the country,
but he found it more than ever necessary to keep his son and horses with
him. The clothmakers were “very light,” and had only been prevented from
rising by the proclamation suspending the new statute. Nevertheless the
Earl of Oxford would be able to do as much as he towards keeping all
quiet, and he concluded with a final protest: “I think I had much wrong
offered me to send my son and servants from me, considering that he
cannot overtake my lord of Suffolk who will be tomorrow night at
Huntingdon, and they shall be fought withal or tomorrow noon by my Lord
Steward.”[613]

On Monday 9 October Norfolk was at Woolpit. He reported that he could
raise 2500 men, and that he had “set such order that it shall be hard
for anyone to speak an unfitting word without being incontinently taken
and sent to me.” He had heard of the rising in Boston and Holland and
was prepared to meet the rebels if they attempted to join hands with the
discontented clothiers of Suffolk. If only Oxford were sent down the
country would be safe enough, and he himself was ready to serve under
the Duke of Suffolk, whom he could join in two or three days[614]. Three
hours later, when he was within three miles of his home at Kenninghall,
he received a summons to the general muster, dated the 7th[615].
Probably the messenger had been despatched on the 7th, had missed
Norfolk, who had been travelling about so much, and had only come up to
him now. But the Duke at once accepted the summons as countermanding the
orders that had reached him on the 8th, and wrote to the Council that he
would set out for London that night as soon as the moon rose[616]. Here
we must take leave of my Lord of Norfolk for a considerable time.

On Sunday 8 October Lord Darcy wrote to his son from Pontefract Castle,
urging him to make haste to the King; the Lord Steward, he said, would
understand that Sir Arthur was necessary to his father, on account of
his (Lord Darcy’s) debility, and he could do most service by going to
the King at once. In spite of every effort, Yorkshire was on the point
of rising[617]. The King’s letters summoning the northern counties to
send help to Shrewsbury were received at Pontefract that day. The danger
of mustering men in a shire humming with sedition was obvious. However
Sir Brian Hastings, the sheriff, who was with Darcy, set out to gather
what men he could and march to Nottingham[618]. The King wrote to Darcy
on the same day, in ignorance of Yorkshire affairs, simply to tell him
to deny the rumours about parish churches, etc., and thereby expose the
“wretched and devilish intents” of the rebels[619]. Next day, Monday 9
October, the King did at last receive Darcy’s letters. He thanked him
for his warning and politic proceedings, but was confident that the
danger was at an end, and that all Darcy had to do now was to arrest
fugitives and any who spread rumours[620]. This tone of exaggerated
confidence perhaps shows that the King distrusted Darcy, for the
position of affairs seemed very unpromising from the royal point of
view. It was reported in London that Sir Thomas Percy had joined the
rebels with 30,000 men to avenge himself on the King for the loss of his
inheritance[621]. No doubt this was the first distorted hint of the
rising in the northern counties.

The disposition of the royal forces was as follows: at Nottingham were
the Earls of Shrewsbury, Rutland, and Huntingdon, with such forces and
weapons as they could muster. At Stamford were Sir John Russell and Sir
William Parr with a small force in an absolutely defenceless town[622].
At Huntingdon was the Duke of Suffolk, who arrived there at 6 a.m. on
Monday morning, almost alone, to find “neither ordnance nor artillery
nor men enough to do anything; such men as are gathered there have
neither harness nor weapons.”[623] He had received from the King letters
for the rebels, which reproached them for their disloyalty, denied the
rumours, and threatened them with terrible vengeance if they did not
instantly submit[624]. These he sent to Lincoln with a covering letter
of his own[625]. Even if the rebels refused to surrender he hoped he
might be able to prevent their advance until the royal army was in a
little better order. But he also wrote to ask for instructions in case
they should submit, and to urge that money, of which he was greatly in
need, and ordnance, should be sent at once. Many of the troops which he
had levied in Suffolk were detained there by the King’s orders, and he
begged that they might be sent after him under command of Sir Anthony
Wingfield, Sir Arthur Hopton, and Sir Francis Lovell. He was expecting
to be joined by Sir Francis Brian, who was at Kimbolton with 300 horse.
He had written to Parr and Russell to ask whether it would be possible
to defend Stamford; if not they were to fall back upon him at
Huntingdon[626]. At the same time he wrote to Cromwell for “a herald,
two pursuivants, two trumpets and the King’s banner.”[627]

On Tuesday 10 October Suffolk determined to advance to Stamford instead
of halting at Huntingdon. He was joined early in the morning, before he
set out, by Richard Cromwell, without the ordnance[628], which was
finally despatched from London that very day under charge of William
Gonson[629]. Richard had heard a rumour that Suffolk had lost a battle
and 20,000 men, and wrote to his uncle to assure him that everything was
going well[630]. George Staines was taken by the royal troops on his way
up to London with the rebels’ second petition to the King, and was sent
on under guard by Suffolk[631]. By 8 o’clock on Tuesday night there were
assembled at Stamford the forces of Suffolk and Richard Cromwell, Sir
John Russell and Sir William Parr, Sir Francis Brian, and the troops
from Ampthill under the Admiral, Sir William Fitzwilliam[632].

The letters from the King and the Duke of Suffolk were delivered this
day to the gentlemen in the Chapter House of Lincoln Cathedral. They
brought the affairs of the rebels to a crisis. It became necessary for
the gentlemen to make a definite choice. The royal troops were
disorganised and without money or ordnance. In discipline, equipment,
and fighting quality they were exactly the same as the insurgents,
neither better nor worse; both alike were drawn from the ordinary farm
hands of the country and tradesmen of the town. The rebels, being on
volunteer service, might be something above the royal troops in spirit;
on the other hand the King’s men had no voice in the council of war and
were more amenable to authority. The commons of Lincolnshire were
clamouring to be led to battle, and one small success, which seemed well
within their reach, might raise the whole kingdom and leave the King at
their mercy. But the gentlemen were afraid. In order to gain that
victory they must definitely throw in their lot with the commons, give
up the plea that they were with them only on compulsion, and abandon all
hope of making peace with the King. If they fought and were defeated
those who did not fall in the field would end on the gallows, or at best
in exile; their lands would pass to strangers, their children would be
left destitute, and the old names would die out. Lincolnshire would be
given over to fire and pillage. If they fought and won, it would mean
the renewal of civil war in England, after fifty years of peace. The new
war would be a religious war, with some prospect of a foreign invasion;
England at the hour of her first prosperity, just taking her place among
the nations, might be crippled beyond recovery. It was a terrible
decision to lie in the hands of a few country gentlemen, who were not,
perhaps, very well fitted to deal with such momentous affairs.
Cromwell’s servant, John Williams, declared a few weeks later that he
had never seen anywhere “such a sight of asses, so unlike gentlemen as
the most part of them be. Knights and esquires are meeter to be baileys;
men void of good fashion, and, in truth, of wit, except in matters
concerning their trade which is to get goods only.”[633] This is very
prejudiced evidence, but the attitude of the Lincolnshire gentlemen
towards the rebellion is a difficult problem. It is impossible to speak
of them all collectively as doing or believing this or that. The chief
distinction that must be noticed is the division of the host into two
principal bands, the men of Louth and the men of Horncastle.

The gentlemen who belonged to the Louth district seem on the whole to
have been acting from the first against their will; they were for the
most part the commissioners taken at Caistor, and they had generally
every reason to support the government and fear the commons. There were
exceptions, such as Sir Christopher Askew, but on the whole the commons
were right in the suspicions which they entertained of their enforced
leaders. William Morland stated in his evidence that “as far as he could
see both all the gentlemen and honest yeomen of the country were weary
of this matter, and sorry for it, but durst not disclose their opinion
to the commons for fear of their lives.”[634]

In the Horncastle host the leaders were not nearly so reluctant. When
the people first rose there and went to Scrivelsby Hall they were met,
about a quarter of a mile from the house, by the sheriff, Thomas Dymmoke
of Carlton, Mr Dighton of Sturton, Mr Sanderson, and Arthur Dymmoke.
They greeted the commons with the words, “Masters, ye be welcome,” and
when they were told they must take the commons’ oath they replied, “With
a good will.” When the sheriff was asked whether the bells should be
rung, he said, “Yea, and ye will, for it is necessary that the people
have knowledge.”[635] That night the Sandersons went through the village
of Snelland in harness and told the people that they must be at the
Horncastle muster next day[636]; they were the bringers of the white
banner with the parchment picture[637]. It was the gentlemen of
Horncastle who drew up the articles and explained the Statute of Uses to
the commons[638]. Nicholas Leache, the parson of Belchford, who was with
the Horncastle company, thought “all the exterior acts of the gentlemen
amongst the commons were done willingly, for he saw them as diligent to
set forward every matter as the commons were. And further during the
whole time of the insurrection not one of them persuaded the people to
desist or showed them it was high treason. Otherwise he believes in his
conscience they would not have gone forward, for all the people with
whom he had intelligence thought they had not offended the King, as the
gentlemen caused proclamations to be made in his name. He thinks the
gentlemen might have stayed the people of Horncastle, for at the
beginning his parishioners went forward among the rebels only by command
of the gentlemen. The gentlemen were first harnessed of all others, and
commanded the commons to prepare themselves harness, and he believes the
commons expected to have redress of grievances by way of supplication to
the King.”[639]

At first the policy of the gentlemen, whether favourable or unfavourable
to the rising, was probably much the same. There would have been no
difficulty in making a sudden dash up to London, for there was no force
to oppose them on the way; but even if they reached London, as Wat Tyler
and Jack Cade did from nearer points, it was difficult to do anything
effective there. The well-wishers of the insurgents might reasonably
think that their best chance lay in drilling the commons into some sort
of discipline before they advanced, and this was the opinion of all the
gentlemen. According to George Hudswell, “Sir William Skipwith said they
(the commons) should be ordered whether they would or no, and every
gentleman said it shall be well done that they be ruled”;[640] Philip
Trotter deposed that “from the beginning to the end of the insurrection
the gentlemen might have stayed it if they would, for the commons did
nothing but by the gentlemen’s commandment, and they durst never stir in
the field from the place they were appointed to till the gentlemen
directed them what to do; and were cautioned not to stir from their
appointed places upon pain of death.”[641] Moreover, if the leaders knew
that Yorkshire would rise in a few days, they may have wished to put off
their advance on London until they were joined by reinforcements from
the north.

The fact that the gentlemen counselled delay does not therefore prove
that they were really opposed to the rising. But by Tuesday 10 October
the spirits of the most daring seem to have failed. No doubt rumours of
the King’s musters had reached them as much exaggerated as the accounts
of their own numbers which were repeated in London. The first effect of
the news from Yorkshire had worn off. The commissioners were men of
influence, and when the more impetuous of the gentlemen found them
opposed to the movement, they probably felt its chance of success was
very much diminished. They may have been half irritated and half
frightened by the attitude of the commons, who were in a grumbling,
dispirited, and yet vicious mood. They feared their allies quite as much
as the troops which opposed them; and recollections of the German
Peasant Revolt in 1525 would increase their alarm[642]. When it came to
the parting of the ways, even those who had at first seemed heart and
soul with the rebels wavered; they dared not proclaim themselves
traitors and give up the path of retreat which they believed was still
open to them. Accordingly they prepared to desert the commons. If they
had had a chief captain, a man who thought of neither gentlemen nor
commons but only of the cause, this dangerous time might have been tided
over. A popular leader might have coaxed the host out of its ill-humour,
and inspired the gentlemen to forget the promptings of cowardice and
treachery in the greatness of the adventure which they had taken upon
them. But there was no leader, and mistrust and disorder took his place
in Lincoln.

There was a muster upon Lincoln Heath on Tuesday morning, but it seems
to have been ill-attended. The monks of Kirkstead and the men of
Sleaford both were given leave to go home[643]. William Morland returned
to his home at Kedington, and in passing through Louth saved the lives
of Cromwell’s servants, Bellowe, Milsent, and Parker, who had been
imprisoned in the Tollbooth since Monday 2 October. Their captors,
having taken their money and given it into the charge of Robert Brown
the jailor, had resolved to put them to death, but Morland and some
honest men of the town persuaded the crowd to spare the prisoners and
disperse. In recognition of this service Parker and his fellows
requested the jailor to give Morland, out of the £6 of their money which
he was keeping, “two crowns, the one of 5_s._ and the other of 14
groats, and to make up just 10_s._ they gave him 4_d._ in silver.”[644]
It is a pity that Morland, who was so good an observer and narrator, was
away from Lincoln on this critical day, as only one account of the
events now remains, that of Thomas Moigne[645].

On Tuesday afternoon some three hundred of the commons brought in the
letters from the King and the Duke of Suffolk addressed to Sir Robert
Tyrwhit, Sir William Askew, Sir William Skipwith and Sir Edward Dymmoke.
They carried them to the gentlemen who were assembled in the Chapter
House, and insisted on hearing their contents. Moigne began to read the
letters aloud, but coming to a part which he knew would anger the
commons, he omitted it. The parson of Snelland, standing at his elbow,
detected this, and cried out to the commons that the letter was falsely
read[646]. The meeting was plunged into confusion; someone cried that it
was time to kill some of the justices: if they were hanged for it they
would not leave a gentleman alive in the shire[647]; many would have
slain Moigne. In the end the wilder spirits were driven out into the
cloisters, where, after much debate, they determined to kill the
gentlemen. Their plans miscarried, for the gentlemen’s servants
overheard, and warned their masters that a party was lying in wait to
kill them as they came out of the west door of the minster. With the aid
of the faithful servants they were smuggled out of the south door to the
house of the murdered chancellor, and there they resolved to make a
stand, to refuse to go forward, and to defend themselves, if necessary,
until the royal army relieved them[648]. According to Moigne this
resolution was taken by his advice, but some preparations had been made
the day before to render the Close defensible against the commons[649].
The servants carried messages to “the most honest men of their
companies” by which they were induced to give up the idea of going
forward. Meanwhile the commons outside the minster discovered that they
had been tricked, and decided not to attack the gentlemen until
morning[650].

On Wednesday 11 October the gentlemen and honest men, in harness,
marched down from Lincoln minster and met the commons in the fields,
where they stated clearly that they would not go forward, but would wait
for the King’s answer to their suit for pardon. They had written to
Suffolk to ask him to intercede for them, and they would do no
more[651]. The commons seem to have been completely bewildered by this
turn of affairs. They did not attack the gentlemen, but neither did they
choose leaders of their own and go on, nor as an alternative return to
their homes in a body. A good many slipped away quietly; Robert Carre of
Sleaford, for instance, went to see his wife, who had taken refuge with
her father, put his “evidences” into two chests, gave orders that they
were to be hidden in a hole under the thatch if the host came by, and
rode off to join Lord Clinton at Nottingham[652]. The canons of Barlings
went home the same day[653]. William Morland on the other hand returned
to Lincoln by way of Louth, where he “made him a cloak of black cloth.”
It was said in the host that he had gone to Louth to fire the beacons,
which shook his credit both with the gentlemen and the commons, until
two indifferent men were sent to Louth, who reported that he had done no
such thing[654].

Rumours of the rebels’ flight soon reached Suffolk’s camp, and Richard
Cromwell reported them to his uncle. His letter gives an amusing glimpse
of Suffolk’s headquarters. Richard says that “my Lord Admiral”
(Fitzwilliam) and also “my Lord’s Grace” (Suffolk) show him great
attention, and “my Lord Admiral is so earnest in the matter that I dare
well say he would eat them (the rebels) with salt. I never saw one
triumph like unto him.”[655] It is easy to imagine the nobles, with
hearts full of contempt and hatred, showing every courtesy to the young
upstart, and taking care that their abuse of traitors grew warmer when
he appeared. It was first said that 10,000 or 12,000 of the rebels had
fled home, but later in the day one of Sir John Thimbleby’s sons arrived
at Stamford who halved these figures, but declared that not 10,000
remained in Lincoln. Young Thimbleby’s reception was not encouraging;
Suffolk at once put him in ward and threatened, if his father did not
come in by eight next morning, to spoil all he had and cut his son in
pieces. The feeling against Sir John was particularly strong, because
Russell and Parr accused him of assembling all his tenants as if to join
them, threatening to burn the houses of those who refused to go with
him, and then taking his whole company over to the rebels. Suffolk
intended to march on Lincoln on Saturday, and afterwards to destroy
Louth and Horncastle. Richard Cromwell professed to be very sorry that
the rebels were flying, as he had hoped they would be used as they
deserved and the whole shire sacked[656]. The ordnance had arrived at
Huntingdon[657], so that Suffolk was able to think of advancing. His
only wish was to meet the rebels in a pitched battle, but Shrewsbury, at
Nottingham, was more politic. He had with him Thomas Miller, Lancaster
Herald, whom he despatched to Lincoln with a proclamation which bade the
rebels depart to their homes[658]. Lancaster Herald reached Lincoln on
Wednesday evening and found everything in confusion,—the gentlemen
anxious to make their peace with the King,—the commons without leaders,
without plans, without hopes[659]. It was too late to discharge his
errand that night.

On Thursday 12 October the host was summoned to the Castle Garth to hear
his proclamation[660]. It was in the names of George Earl of Shrewsbury,
Thomas Earl of Rutland, and George Earl of Huntingdon, and briefly
ordered the rebels to depart to their houses[661]. The herald told the
rebels that Shrewsbury was prepared to fight them on Ancaster Heath if
they disobeyed[662]. It is not known what further arguments he used, but
after much persuasion the commons agreed to go home, while the gentlemen
made a formal submission[663] and repaired to Suffolk to sue for
pardon[664]. There was still a party which was eager to fight. Its
leader, Robert Leache, seized the gentlemen’s written submission, and
opened and read it before it was delivered to the herald, “saying he
would see what their answer was ere it should depart.”[665] With the
usual irony of slow-fingered indifference the painters had ready that
day the banner which the insurgents had designed for themselves. It was
a linen cloth on which were painted “the Five Wounds of Christ, a
chalice with the Host, a plough and a horn with a scripture.” The Five
Wounds were to show the people they fought in Christ’s cause; the
chalice and the Host were in remembrance that chalices, crosses, and
church jewels should be taken away; the plough was to encourage the
husbandmen; the horn, according to the Horncastle men, was in token of
Horncastle, but others regarded it as a symbol of the tax on horned
cattle[666].

The news of the herald’s success was sent to Suffolk, and he wrote to
the King asking for instructions. He was expecting to effect a junction
with Shrewsbury on the following Monday[667]. Most of the money had
arrived[668], and the ordnance was looked for next day (Friday). He
wished to know whether he and the Lord Steward should pardon the
Lincolnshire men and advance at once into Yorkshire, or stay and reduce
Lincolnshire to complete submission by severity. He pointed out that the
Yorkshire rebellion was spreading fast and had better be confronted
immediately, and that by an advance the royal troops could prevent a
meeting between the Yorkshiremen and any new rebels in Lincolnshire. He
wrote at midnight, and in the midst of his letter the Dymmokes arrived
at the camp accompanied by a messenger from the other gentlemen, who was
commissioned to ask Suffolk whether they should come to him in harness
and to beg for his intercession with the King. He replied that they must
use their own discretion; he could only keep them in surety until the
King’s pleasure was known[669].

On Friday 13 October the last of the insurgents dispersed[670]. They
despatched the bailly of Barton to Beverley—the last messenger from the
Lincolnshire host—to countermand Kyme’s message[671]. The men of
Horncastle marched sadly home and placed their new unneeded banner in
the parish church[672]. All Suffolk’s ordnance had now arrived, and
though he had only 5000 men he discharged 2000, as he had not enough
arms to supply both his own men and Shrewsbury’s; he thought such a sign
of confidence would make an impression on the rebels. He sent word to
Shrewsbury to advance next day to meet him, but the Earl replied that he
could not leave Nottingham without money, and that he wished to know
what the King had to say to Lancaster Herald’s report before anything
more was attempted[673]. Shrewsbury wrote at the same time to Darcy, and
sent him a copy of the proclamation which had had such effect in
Lincoln. He said that the rebels now “mind themselves to be the King’s
true and faithful subjects at all times and from time to time
accordingly.” As they would give no further help to the Yorkshiremen,
but on the contrary had promised to stop the boats on the Humber, Ouse,
and Trent, “so that none shall come over but be glad to return homewards
like fools,” he trusted that the disturbances in Yorkshire would
cease[674].

At this point we must return to Lord Hussey, who had gone straight to
Shrewsbury’s camp after his escape from Sleaford. He reached Nottingham
on the morning of Monday 9 October, bringing with him his wife and
George Hudswell. Instead of finding himself in safety among friends he
had only left one atmosphere of danger and suspicion to enter another.
Shrewsbury’s doubts of his loyalty sprang from the constant reports that
he had joined the rebels. Depositions against him had been taken as
early as the 7th[675]; when Norfolk heard the false report that he was
with the rebels he wrote to the King, “if it be true there is folly upon
folly. I pray God there be truth though there be much folly.”[676]
Hussey’s own family unintentionally strengthened the feeling against
him. Fitzwilliam advised Cromwell to examine Sir William Hussey as to
why he had not reported to the Council the seditious words which,
according to his servant’s report, he had heard between Lincolnshire and
London[677]. On their arrival at Nottingham Lady Hussey created a very
unfavourable impression when she implored the Earls of Shrewsbury and
Huntingdon to allow her husband to return to Lincolnshire for the sake
of the children she had left at Sleaford; “like a fool saying that if
she brought me not again the rebels would burn my house and them,” said
her naturally aggrieved husband[678]. No doubt the poor lady was in
great anxiety, and he had brought her with him much against her will.
George Cutler, who had carried Hussey’s messages to the rebels, was
examined that day[679].

The principal evidence as to Lord Hussey’s conduct lies in two undated
papers, which were probably drawn up about the end of the week. One is
his own statement to the Council, whom he begged to intercede for him
with the King. After giving an account of the week’s events at Sleaford,
he concluded with the assertion that he had 300 men now in the King’s
service, 200 under the command of his son, and eight score under Anthony
Ireby; that he remained at Sleaford to stay the country, and that while
he was there neither Holland nor Kesteven rose[680]. The other document
is the deposition of Robert Carre of Sleaford, the head of the principal
local family[681]. The two accounts agree very closely as to the facts,
but differ completely in the interpretation put upon them. Lord Hussey
represented himself as pacifying those who urged him to join the rebels;
Carre accused him of sending away men who offered to fight for the King;
for example, “Before the rebels came to Sleaford, the bailiff of
Ruskington offered to be, with as many as he could get, under Hussey’s
command; and my Lord pinched him by the little finger, bidding him come
when he sent unto him by that token and not else.” At the end of his
deposition, which is mutilated, there seem to have been other instances
of persons who offered their services to Lord Hussey and “had slender
answers.”[682] This account is to some extent confirmed by the saying of
Richard Burwell, constable of Potter Hanworth, that he asked counsel of
Mr Robert Sutton, who answered that he had been with Lord Hussey and
could see no remedy but to do as the commons did[683].

Against this must be set Hussey’s account of the position; Lord Clinton
had fled, the gentlemen returned slack answers to his summons, and he
did not believe that he could raise enough men to resist the rebels, but
by his influence he was able to keep his own people from rising, while
if like Lord Borough and Lord Clinton he had fled at the first alarm,
they would have joined the rebels at once[684]. There seems to be little
doubt that this was really Hussey’s belief, and in itself it was quite
reasonable. There are two points which tell against Carre’s evidence. In
the first place he had been for some days with the rebels,—against his
will as he said,—but still the fact was enough to hang him. In the
circumstances he would probably be ready to say anything that his
examiners wished him to say, and particularly ready to incriminate
somebody else. In the second place the whole deposition is conceived in
a spirit of the bitterest hatred of Hussey, perhaps on account of some
forgotten local quarrel, perhaps from a feeling that Hussey had deserted
Sleaford and brought its inhabitants into danger. In one place Carre
says “If my lord had gathered men for the King as he had done for his
own pomp to ride to sessions or assize, he might have driven the rebels
back,” an obviously foolish and spiteful remark[685]. The offer of help
which he mentions came too late, when the rebels were approaching the
town and Hussey had prepared for flight. Carre’s deposition seems to
have been the chief evidence against Hussey, and at the end of it are
written the ominous words, “My lord Hussey, this is perused
deliberately.” All things considered, the only charge which could be
substantiated against Hussey was that he had made himself singular by
remaining at his post longer than the neighbouring noblemen.

On Wednesday 11 October the King did not yet know of the Yorkshire
insurrection, and though the issue in Lincolnshire was still doubtful,
he put a bold face on the matter and wrote to the ambassadors in France,
Gardiner and Wallop, such an account of the rebellion as he wished to
circulate in foreign courts. The rebels were chiefly boys and beggars,
who had been deceived by the false rumours of traitors. He had sent an
army under the Duke of Suffolk, which would by this time have disposed
of them, and “according to ancient custom” had levied another of “pure
tried men” which could not number less than 40,000 and had been conveyed
to Ampthill in six days, “and yet the greater part of our realm is not
touched.”[686] This was a rather loose statement on the King’s part,
though no doubt good enough for foreign consumption; the first levies at
Ampthill had been summoned on the 5th and 6th and had marched to
Huntingdon with Fitzwilliam on the 9th, while the second levies, which
were just being assembled by Norfolk and others, were summoned on the
10th to be at Ampthill on the 16th[687]. Suffolk’s letters of the 12th
were not despatched until after midnight; consequently the news of the
“sparpling” of the rebels cannot have been generally known in London on
the 13th. It was probably on this day that Chapuys’ nephew sent an
account of the rising to the Regent of the Netherlands. He refers to the
events of the 12th, but not to the rebels’ capitulation. He gives an
amusing account of the progress of affairs,—as they were unofficially
reported in London. The King’s commissioners, he said, were demolishing
400 (really 40) abbeys in Lincolnshire, when the peasants rose against
them on Monday 2 October “under the leading of a shoemaker named William
Keing Hardy, a man of persuasive manner.” This must be our old friend
Nicholas Melton, Captain Cobbler, but it is impossible to say where
Chapuys’ nephew picked up the extraordinary name. The rebels tried to
seize Dr Legh, “a man much hated by the whole country for his arrogance
ever since he dared to cite before the Archbishop of Canterbury your
late aunt the Queen of England.” But Legh escaped, and in their
disappointed rage the commons seized and hanged his cook. There is
nothing in the depositions about the rebellion to confirm this story.
Chapuys also repeats the tale about a man being baited to death, and
mentions the rumour of a rising further north, and the execution of two
men at Windsor for seditious words. He describes the murder of the
Bishop of Lincoln’s chancellor, and attributes the commons’ hatred of
the bishop, to the fact that they regarded him “as one of the principal
councillors who raised scruples in the King to repudiate your said
aunt.” The numbers of the host increased rapidly, and they began to take
and swear the gentlemen; “and from that time the said shoemaker began to
wear a cloak of crimson satin, embroidered with the words “Je ayme Dieu
le roy et le prouffit du commung.”[688] The arrival of the news in
London and the King’s preparations are next described. “On Saturday (7
October) they (the rebels) were more than 50,000, and among them over
10,000 priests, monks and religious persons of whom the most learned
continually admonish their men to continue the work begun, pointing out
the advantages which will come to them of it.” The writer himself saw
the ordnance taken out of the Tower and the break-down which occurred.
The King is levying musters in Kent and the southern counties, but there
is great danger that his own men will turn against him, as they
sympathise with the demands of the rebels, saying “that they wish to
live like their ancestors, defend the abbeys and churches, be quit of
taxes and subsidies, and recover those they have paid already more by
fear than love, especially that which they lent in the time of the
Cardinal, which amounts to a very horrible sum. Finally they demand a
shearer of cloths to be given up to them, meaning Cromwell, and a
tavernkeeper, meaning the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chancellor of
the country, the Chancellor of the Augmentations, and certain other
bishops and lords of the King’s Council.” The King is taking men from
Dover and Sandwich, which will weaken the coast defences and make an
invasion easy. The French tailors and Flemish shoemakers in London are
being compelled to serve in the army for two groats a day, and one groat
as drink money for every five miles they march, while the English
receive only 6_d._ and the same drink money. He concludes by pointing
out that such a chance may not come again for avenging all the wrongs
that Henry has inflicted on the faith and family of the Emperor; he
therefore implores the Regent to send from the army now in Zealand 2000
arquebusiers and a supply of ammunition, which should be landed “in the
river which goes up to York.”[689] Needless to say, this advice was not
acted upon.

By the next day, Saturday 14 October, Lancaster Herald was with the
King, and the news from Lincolnshire must have been generally known. For
the first time since the beginning of the rebellion all parties halted,
and nothing was done until the 15th, Sunday, when the King, believing
all danger at an end, sent out orders countermanding the musters at
Ampthill[690]. Suffolk would delay his advance no longer, but set out
for Lincoln, and sent a message to Shrewsbury to do the same. He was
obliged to advance slowly, as he took the ordnance with him[691]. He
received from the King instructions to occupy Lincoln and to collect
there the arms of the rebels[692]; with these orders came a proclamation
by which the King accepted the surrender and promised to show
mercy[693]. The gentlemen were to be examined, and their examinations
returned in writing to the King; they might then be dismissed with good
words, except the most culpable, who were to be sent up to London.
Suffolk was to establish order in the shire, and to survey the Cathedral
and the Close secretly, as the King thought of placing a garrison there,
“to keep them in mind that their forefathers were traitors and for the
keeping under of their posterity.” If the country submitted there was to
be no pillaging, but four captains of Louth, three of Horncastle, and
two of Caistor must be kept for execution. Suffolk might expect
reinforcements, and was to remain at Lincoln until he received further
orders. If all was quiet when he received this letter, he need not
publish the proclamation, but the King “took the sending of the herald
in good part,” for the people respected his coat and he could see more
than an ordinary spy. Shrewsbury was to join Suffolk in examining the
traitors, and then to disperse his troops and go quietly home, if all
went well, but if there were further disturbances in Yorkshire, he was
to advance at once to suppress them, taking with him the ordnance, as
Suffolk could be supplied with more from Ampthill[694]. The order to
Shrewsbury shows that the King was still over-confident. It was
Shrewsbury’s rash advance, in obedience to it, which afterwards
seriously embarrassed the position of the royal troops.

Suffolk sent forward the Admiral with an advance guard, and on Tuesday
17 October was himself at Lincoln. His sudden appearance put an end to
the last plans of resistance which the rebels still cherished. Richard
Cromwell said that the people of Lincoln were “as obstinate persons as
ever I saw, who would scarce move their bonnets to my said lord, and
probably would have withstood us if we had not stolen upon them.”[695]
In his next despatches Suffolk explained to the King that the situation
was not so secure as Henry had assumed in his first relief,—the country
was still very much unsettled, and beacons were lighted and men
assembled in harness on the least provocation. He had ordered the
release of Milsent and Bellowe from Louth Tollbooth, but their jailor
was obliged to promise that they should be restored on demand before the
commons would let them go[696]. On Wednesday 18 October he sent Sir
Francis Brian to make a full report to the King. Sir Francis reached
Windsor next day, just as a reply was being drawn up to Suffolk’s
previous letters, in which he was thanked for his diligence and promised
money, ordnance and men, under the command of Sir Anthony Browne. If any
further rising was attempted he must immediately attack Louth and “with
all extremity destroy, burn and kill man, woman and child, the terrible
example of all others.” Sir Francis, however, must have explained that
if it came to fighting it was by no means certain that the terrible
example would not be, so to speak, on the other foot, as Suffolk had
only 3000 men of certain loyalty in the heart of a hostile country; the
King’s postscript, therefore, took a milder tone. Sir John Thimbleby and
the other gentlemen were to be told that he “minded nothing less (i.e.
nothing was further from his thoughts) than their destruction.” All the
gentlemen who would come in and serve the King might be promised safety
from bodily hurt and the Duke’s intercession with the King; proclamation
must be made that the multitude could obtain the same terms, if they
would denounce their captains and give them up. The King also, at last,
sent an answer to the commons’ petition which had been sent to him on
the 9th. It was to be read openly, and he complacently added that he
thought it was “so conceived as of itself to make them repent their
follies and ask mercy without further tarrying.”[697] The answer was as
follows:

  “Answer to the Petitions of the Traitors and Rebels in Lincolnshire.

  “First, We begin and make answer to the 4th and 6th articles, because
  upon them dependeth much of the rest. Concerning choosing of
  Councillors, I never have read, heard, nor known that princes’
  councillors and prelates should be appointed by rude and ignorant
  common people; nor that they were persons meet, or of ability, to
  discern and choose meet and sufficient councillors for a prince. How
  presumptuous then are ye, the rude commons of one shire, and that one
  of the most brute and beastly of the whole realm, and of least
  experience, to find fault with your prince, for the electing of his
  councillors and prelates; and to take upon you, contrary to God’s law,
  and man’s law, to rule your prince, whom ye are bound by all laws to
  obey, and serve, with both your lives, lands, and goods, and for no
  worldly cause to withstand: the contrary whereof you, like traitors
  and rebels, have attempted, and not like true subjects, as ye name
  yourselves.

  “As to the suppression of religious houses and monasteries, We will
  that ye, and all our subjects should well know, that this is granted
  us by all the nobles, spiritual and temporal, of this our realm, and
  by all the commons of the same by Act of Parliament; and not set forth
  by any councillor or councillors, upon their mere will and fantasy, as
  ye full falsely would persuade our realm to believe. And where ye
  allege, that the service of God is much thereby diminished, the truth
  thereof is contrary; for there be none houses suppressed, where God
  was well served, but where most vice, mischief, and abomination of
  living was used: and that doth well appear by their own confession,
  subscribed with their own hands, in the time of our visitations. And
  yet were suffered a great many of them, more than we by the act
  needed, to stand; wherein, if they amend not their living, we fear we
  have more to answer for, than for the suppression of all the rest. And
  as for their hospitality, for the relief of poor people, we wonder ye
  be not ashamed to affirm, that they have been a great relief to our
  people, when a great many, or the most part, hath not past four or
  five religious persons in them, and divers but one, which spent the
  substance of the goods of their house, in nourishing of vice, and
  abominable living. Now, what unkindness and unnaturality may we impute
  to you, and all our subjects, that be of that mind, that had lever
  such an unthrifty sort of vicious persons should enjoy such
  possessions, profits, and emoluments, as grow of the said houses, to
  the maintenance of their unthrifty life; than we, your natural prince,
  sovereign lord, and king, which doth and hath spent more in your
  defence, of his own, the six times they be worth!

  “As touching the Act of Uses, we marvel what madness is in your brain,
  or upon what ground ye would take authority upon you, to cause us to
  break those laws and statutes, which, by all the nobles, knights, and
  gentlemen of this realm, whom the same chiefly toucheth, hath been
  granted and assented to; seeing in no manner of thing it toucheth you,
  the base commons of our realm! Also the grounds of those uses were
  false, and never admitted by any law, but usurped upon the prince,
  contrary to all equity and justice, as it hath been openly both
  disputed and declared, by all the well learned men of England in
  Westminster Hall; whereby ye may well perceive, how mad and
  unreasonable your demands be, both in that, and the rest, and how
  unmeet it is for us, and dishonourable, to grant or assent unto, and
  less meet and decent for you, in such rebellious sort, to demand the
  same of your prince.

  “As touching the Fifteenth, which ye demand of us to be released,
  think ye that we be so faint hearted, that, perforce, ye of one shire
  (were ye a great many more) could compel us with your insurrections,
  and such rebellious demeanour, to remit the same? or think ye that any
  man will or may take you to be true subjects, that first make a show
  of a loving grant, and then, perforce, would compel your sovereign
  lord and king to release the same; the time of payment whereof is not
  yet come? yea, and seeing the same will not countervail the tenth
  penny of the charges, which we do, and daily must, sustain, for your
  tuition and safeguard? Make ye sure, by your occasions of this your
  ingratitudes, unnaturalness, and unkindness to us, now administered,
  ye give us cause, which hath always been as much dedicate to your
  wealths, as ever was king, not so much to set our study for the
  setting forward of the same, seeing how unkindly and untruly ye deal
  now with us, without any cause or occasion. And doubt ye not, though
  ye have no grace nor naturalment in you, to consider your duties of
  allegiance to your king and sovereign; the rest of our realm, we doubt
  not, hath: and we, and they, shall so look on this cause, that we
  trust shall be to your confusion, if, according to our former letters,
  ye submit not yourselves.

  “As touching the First Fruits, we let you weet, it is a thing granted
  us by Act of Parliament also, for the supportation of part of the
  great and excessive charges, which we support and bear, for the
  maintenance of your wealths, and others our subjects. And we have
  known, also, that ye, our commons, have much complained, in times
  passed, that the most of the goods, lands, and possessions of the
  realm were in the spiritual men’s hands; and yet now, bearing us in
  hand that ye be as loving subjects to us as may be, ye can not find in
  your hearts that your prince and sovereign lord should have any part
  thereof, (and yet it is nothing prejudicial unto you, our commons;)
  but do rebel and unlawfully rise against your prince, contrary to your
  duty of allegiance, and God’s commandment. Wherefore, sirs, remember
  your follies and traitorous demeanours, and shame not your native
  country of England, nor offend no more, so grievously, your undoubted
  king and natural prince, which always hath showed himself most loving
  unto you; and remember your duty of allegiance, and that ye are bound
  to obey us, your king, both by God’s commandment and law of nature.
  Wherefore we charge you eftsoons, upon the forsaid bonds and pains,
  that ye withdraw yourselves to your own houses every man, and no more
  assemble contrary to our laws and your allegiances; and to cause the
  provokers of you to this mischief to be delivered to our lieutenants’
  hands, or ours, and you yourselves to submit you to such condign
  punishment as we, and our nobles, shall think you worthy. For doubt ye
  not else that we and our nobles can nor will suffer this injury at
  your hand unrevenged, if ye give not place to us your sovereign, and
  show yourselves as bounden and obedient subjects, and no more to
  intermeddle yourselves from henceforth with the weighty affairs of the
  realm; the direction whereof only appertaineth to us your king, and
  such noblemen and councillors as he list to elect and choose to have
  the ordering of the same. And thus we pray unto Almighty God to give
  you grace to do your duties, and to use yourselves towards us like
  true and faithful subjects, so as we may have cause to order you
  thereafter; and rather obediently to consent amongst you to deliver
  into the hands of our lieutenant 100 persons, to be ordered according
  to their demerits at our will and pleasure, than by your obstinacy and
  wilfulness to put yourselves, lives, wives, children, lands, goods,
  and chattels, besides the indignation of God, in the utter adventure
  of total destruction and utter ruin by force and violence of the
  sword.”[698]

So ended the insurrection in Lincolnshire, for there is nothing more to
tell of it but the King’s revenge. It was a most curious movement, both
in its sudden outbreak and its still more sudden collapse. It is not
surprising that it should have been attempted, but it is that it should
have failed so completely. The secret of this failure seems to be
twofold. The most obvious weakness was that it had no leader. Perhaps it
would have been better if the commons had trusted solely to their own
leaders, Captain Cobbler, William Morland, and the others. Knowing that
they were committed to the cause, they gave themselves up to it heart
and soul, while the gentlemen upon whom the commons attempted to force
the responsibility were at best only half-hearted. But the lack of a
leader was only a symptom of their real weakness, namely, that they had
no definite object in view. The rising was not simply religious, or
agrarian, or political, but a little of each. It was as much against an
unpopular tax and an unpopular bishop as against the King’s religious
policy and his chief minister. The rebels protested against the
dissolution of the monasteries, but the vital question of the Royal
Supremacy was only mentioned once, and then the rebels expressed their
willingness to acknowledge the title[699]. The gentlemen hated Cromwell
and the Statute of Uses, but they wavered on the question of the abbeys,
and were very much afraid of the commons and of civil war. These jarring
forces could only be united into an effective opposition by the
inspiration of a great leader or a great cause; this was the lesson
which the Lincolnshire failure taught, and one man at least learnt from
it. In many respects the earlier rising was a hindrance to the
Pilgrimage of Grace,—it gave confidence to the government, and confirmed
the waverers in the conviction that the King would win in the end,—but
his connection with it showed Robert Aske what to avoid. He saw that
half-hearted leaders were worse than useless, and he saw also that the
only common ground on which all parties could meet was that of religion.
Himself sincerely attached to the old faith, he insisted on it as the
cause and the sole cause of the insurrection which he led; hence the
curious form of his oath—“we rise not for the common weal, but in
defence of the Church.” His banner did not bear the motley crowd of
symbols which the men of Horncastle devised, but simply the Five Wounds
of Christ. If he could inspire in others the enthusiasm which he himself
felt for that badge, they would lose sight of their conflicting
interests, and gentlemen and commons would fight side by side, without
thought of high or low. This was what Robert Aske learnt from the
Lincolnshire rebellion. It remained to be seen whether he could put it
into practice.


                          NOTES TO CHAPTER VI

  Note A. The attitude of the Lincolnshire gentlemen bears a strong
  resemblance to that of the German nobles who were compelled to join
  the peasants in 1525. “Princes, lords and ecclesiastical dignitaries
  were being compelled far and wide to save their lives, after their
  property was probably already confiscated, by swearing allegiance to
  the Christian League or Brotherhood of the peasants and by
  countersigning the Twelve Articles and other demands of their
  refractory villeins and serfs.”[700]

  The peasants captured Gotz von Berlichingen of the Iron Hand and
  compelled him to become their leader[701]. “Had Gotz been sincere in
  taking up the cause of the rebellion, there is no doubt that,
  experienced warrior as he was, he would have been a valuable
  acquisition. Even as it was some of his suggestions respecting the
  maintenance of discipline were in the right direction, but the fact
  remained that he was acting under compulsion in a cause with which he
  had no sympathy and his one concern was to get rid of his
  responsibility at the first possible moment, if not actually to betray
  his trust.”[702]

  Note B. Moigne’s statement refutes Williams’ scoffing remarks about
  the Lincolnshire gentlemen, for it shows that Moigne at least was a
  very able man. Spirited as it is, there is an air of special pleading
  about it,—the facts are given, but a particular construction is put
  upon them. It would be very interesting to compare this with some
  other narrative of the same events, but no other remains. Examinations
  of the other Lincolnshire gentlemen seem to have been taken, but are
  not preserved, and perhaps very little inquiry was made into the
  affair of the Chapter House, as it reflected too much credit on the
  loyalty of the gentlemen to be acceptable to the King. The only other
  reference to it is in an accusation brought against James Atkinson, a
  tailor, the man who cried out that they ought to kill some of the
  justices.

  Note C. Although Henry exaggerated the number of his forces and the
  speed with which they had been collected, it is too much to say, with
  Tierney and Gasquet, that “no such army ever existed.” The main facts
  that the King had levied and sent north one body of troops and was
  busy levying another were perfectly correct.

  Note D. Another allusion to Captain Cobbler’s robe occurs in a letter
  of Wriothesley’s to Cromwell, written on Monday (23 Oct.), in which,
  speaking of the Lincolnshire prisoners, he says, “I perceive, also,
  his highness would have that traitor in the motley coat well examined,
  for he (the King) took that part also very well; yet we have no
  further news.”[703] The leaders of the German peasants wore gorgeous
  clothes—“a red hat and mantle,” “purple mantles and scarlet birettas
  with ostrich plumes,”[704]—but the English commons, except in this
  case, did not affect such finery.




                              CHAPTER VII
                  THE INSURRECTION IN THE EAST RIDING


If the agitators of the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire risings had been
working together for a general rising at Michaelmas, their plans were
upset; for in the first place Yorkshire did not take up arms till a week
after the appointed day; and secondly the Lincolnshire movement
collapsed with such incredible swiftness. It began on Sunday 1 October,
and by Wednesday the 18th it was over. But when Yorkshire did rise,
events moved so fast that before the insurgents south of Trent had laid
down their arms, the commons of the East Riding had entered York in
triumph, and so widespread was the sympathy felt for their cause that
they might almost be described as masters of the six northern counties.
We will now return to the beginning of the month and trace the course of
the rising of Yorkshire.

When the hunting-party at William Ellerker’s house in Yorkswold broke up
on 3 October, 1536[705], John and Christopher Aske rode to join Sir
Ralph Ellerker the younger, who was with the King’s commissioners of the
subsidy at Hemingborough[706]. Robert Aske and several of his nephews,
law students, turned south and crossed the Humber into Lincolnshire,
ostensibly with no other purpose than returning straight to London for
the term[707]. How they were “taken” and sworn by the commons has
already been related. On Friday, 6 October, the day after his meeting
with Moigne at Hambleton Hill, Robert Aske left his Lincolnshire company
and crossed the Trent into Marshland. Here, and in Howdenshire, north of
the Ouse, where Aughton lay, Aske was in his own country, among men
ready and anxious to rise at his word. He was eagerly welcomed as a
bearer of news from Lincolnshire, and at the mere sight of him the bells
would have been rung, had he not prevented it. All through the
insurrection the ringing of bells was the special sign of the rebels—the
call to arms against the Government. To sound the alarm, generally by
ringing the peal backwards, was to proclaim to all the surrounding
country that the parish had risen. Aske advised the men of Marshland not
to be the first to stir, but to wait till they heard the bells of
Howdenshire. He then crossed the Ouse into Howden and bade the people
there listen for the bells of Marshland before ringing their own; and so
assured himself, in the simplest way, that the alarm would not be given
without his own orders. His motive for this expedition was highly
characteristic. He was determined to delay the Yorkshire rising till the
answer to the Lincolnshire petitions was known[708]. The King might be
inclined to make concessions after all, and Aske regarded rebellion as
the last expedient, to be resorted to when everything else failed. But
this delay, though doubtless it seemed best at the time, when the
commons once let loose might have plunged into any excess, was certainly
a mistake. As the two counties had failed to rise together, the sooner
Yorkshire gave its full support to Lincolnshire the better. On the other
hand, as confusion reigned in the Lincolnshire host, perhaps that brief
pause on the brink of rebellion made little difference in the long run.

Aske rode on to Aughton, but finding his brothers were away with the
King’s commissioners, he turned back to Howden for the night. While he
slept certain honest men of the town came to his bedside to tell him
that Sir George Darcy “would take him if he tarried.” Next day, 7
October, he set out for Lincoln, as rumour said that the King’s answer
had arrived there. Reaching the town on Saturday evening he found
everything in confusion, owing to the mutual distrust of gentlemen and
commons. Both parties, he was told, regarded his journey into Yorkshire
as a desertion, and “if he tarried he should be slain either by the
gentlemen or by the commons.” On this warning he left the sign of the
Angel, where he had put up, and spent the night in hiding with the
host’s brother, a priest. Early in the morning he finally turned his
face northwards and rode to Burton-upon-Stather ferry. Trent was flooded
by the heavy rain on Saturday[709], and he was unable to cross for two
days. At length he crossed the Trent about midnight on Monday, 9
October. He had left Yorkshire on the verge of open revolt; before he
returned the plunge was taken. Exactly how far he was responsible for it
is one of the mysteries of the Pilgrimage.

At the first word of rising in Lincolnshire the anxiety of everyone
responsible for the peace of Yorkshire became painful. Those who were
honestly loyal to the King feared for their property and lives; a far
larger number secretly sympathised with the rebels, but were too
cautious to break with the Government until they were certain of being
on the winning side; even those who entirely approved and who had (we
suspect) been working for an outbreak, generally made an effort to
preserve some appearance of loyalty at the last. The Archbishop of York,
who in spite of all his protestations seems to have belonged to the
waverers, heard the news at Cawood, his favourite residence[710].
Fearing that some of the “light heads in Yorkshire might be encouraged
to do likewise,” he wrote to Darcy at Templehurst, to Dr Magnus (a
member of the King’s Council), Sir George Lawson and the lord mayor of
York; to Robert Crake and Sir Ralph Ellerker the younger, to “keep an
eye on Beverley where there were some light heads”; he sent besides to
Ripon, that in all these places the news might be published that the
Earl of Shrewsbury had set forth against the insurgents[711]. Needless
to point out, he was also spreading the news of revolt. Sir Ralph
Ellerker already knew of the rising[712]; all the north bank of the
Humber had been stirred by beacons lighted on the Lincolnshire side on
Wednesday 4 October, the very night that Aske had been raising the river
side[713], and Sir Ralph had reported the fact to Darcy next day.

Darcy despatched his son, Sir Arthur, to the King with news of the
risings in Northumberland, Dent, Sedbergh and Wensleydale and the
warning that “greater rebellions were to be feared.”[714] He then left
Templehurst, his family seat, for Pontefract Castle, as it was customary
for the King’s steward to repair to his post in time of unrest. The
rumour, afterwards reported to the King, that he had fled there from the
commons with only twelve horsemen was quite unfounded; as a matter of
fact he was obliged to travel very slowly on account of his infirmity,
for he was nearly eighty years old; he had as many men as he wished with
him and every day more of the loyal gentlemen came in with their
followers[715]. Nevertheless his position was anything but secure. Out
of a garrison of 300 men hardly a hundred could be trusted if it came to
a general rising[716]. The town of Pontefract, indeed all the county,
favoured the rebels and hindered his efforts to buy provisions. York
itself would certainly welcome any rebel force, if the King could not
send troops to overawe the citizens[717]. Darcy had written to the King
as early as 6 October for guns and powder[718], as even if victualled
the castle was not in a state of defence. But the King had neither money
nor arms to spare, and, preoccupied with the affairs of Lincolnshire,
did not see fit to despatch either to Yorkshire. Moreover, Darcy’s
loyalty had long been under suspicion, and Henry probably thought that
if things came to the worst it would be better to lose a doubtful
supporter than to send arms to a possible rebel. The most single-hearted
commander might have been daunted by the prospect, and Darcy had
secretly avowed to the Imperial ambassador that his object in coming
north was to organize a rebellion. But whatever his motives were he now
strove to keep the country quiet. He believed (or at least professed to
believe) that the gentlemen were ready to serve the King[719]. He
postponed all “commissions, leets and other assemblies ... till the
King’s pleasure is further known”; he issued soothing messages and
proclamations, but in spite of the momentary success of these
endeavours, on Sunday 8 October the whole of the East Riding flamed up
like a pile of dried bracken, at the first spark of open sedition.

That spark was struck in Beverley. As John and Christopher Aske were
returning home from Hemingborough on Saturday 7 October, they found “the
people drawn out in the fields, awaiting the ringing of Howden great
bell to advance.” The brothers set out the same night and travelled
along the Derwent staying the people[720]; they probably spent the night
at Aughton and next day rode to Beverley and dined with Mr
Babthorpe[721]; long before they left, the town was in commotion and the
alarm bells ringing[722].

The special jurisdiction of Beverley had been abolished by the same act
that swept away the privileges of Durham[723]. This the people bitterly
resented; and they saw clearly that the days of their beloved St John
were numbered. When news first came to Beverley of the Lincolnshire
rising, the people in the market began to talk of going to London “to
have four docepyers (deceivers?) in the realm,” and of bringing home the
goods of Cheapside and the south. A gentleman was heard to say that the
rebels might be sure of Holderness, where he dwelt; and on Saturday two
canons arrived from Lincolnshire and put up at the Tabard Inn, where
they spoke treasonable words[724]. No one could cross the Humber without
a pass from the Lincolnshire rebels[725]. Either on Saturday or Sunday a
letter had come to Robert Raffells “one of the twelve men (i.e.
aldermen) of Beverley,” purporting to come from Robert Aske, bidding
every man of the town to swear to be true to God, the King and the
Commonwealth, and to maintain Holy Church[726]. Raffells had kept this
secret as long as he could[727], but on Sunday 8 October one Roger
Kitchen heard of it and said “he would that day ring the common bell or
die for it.” An attempt was made to stop him, but too late; the bell was
already calling the townsfolk to the market-place. Richard Wilson and
Richard Newdyke commanded the burgesses to assemble at the Town-Hall,
where surrounded by an armed company they read the letter in the name of
Robert Aske, and further proclaimed that every man was to take the oath
on pain of death[728]. No one demurred, and the whole town was sworn. It
was appointed that they should meet, fully armed, in the West Wood field
at four o’clock[729].

Among the throng was one William Breyar, a sanctuary man, who was
wandering about England in the Queen’s livery, to which he seems to have
had no special right; after being sworn with the rest he heard a man in
the crowd say that Robert Aske and another gentleman had been to dinner
at Mr Babthorpe’s house; the bailly Stuard replied, “I marvel what
Robert Aske doth with Mr Babthorpe, for he is a worshipful gentleman”;
rather an ambiguous remark[730]. It was really the two elder Askes who
were in Beverley; Robert was waiting with what patience he might at
Burton-upon-Stather till the evening fell and the beacons on the north
bank of Humber showed him that Yorkshire had not stayed for his coming.
Whether or no he wrote the proclamation that raised the country it is
hard to say, for he himself “utterly denied making or consenting to”
it[731]. On the whole, we incline to accept his word, but fortunately
the question, though interesting, is of little importance. Whoever wrote
this particular letter to Beverley, there is not the slightest doubt
that Aske was from the first the chief leader in the East Riding. If we
suppose this letter to have been “forged in his name” it proves him to
have been admittedly the man with most influence.

The commons of Beverley duly assembled at four o’clock on West Wood
Green, every man that was able with horse and harness; and a council was
held for sending letters to allies and making plans for future
movements[732]. William Woodmancy was despatched to Lincolnshire with
the letter to the commons there under the town seal[733]. A summons was
sent to York, probably at the same time, though the document is undated:
“my lord mayor and all the commons” were asked to send word “against
tomorrow night” to the White Lion at Newborough, whether they would
allow the commons of Beverley “to pass through this the King’s city with
your favour or not, in case we so require.”[734] The lord mayor, anxious
not to quarrel with anyone, seems to have prudently refrained from
sending any reply.

West Wood Green, where the commons met, was near the house of the Grey
friars[735], where some visitors were staying,—Christopher Stapleton of
Wighill, with his wife, his brother William, and his son Brian[736]. It
is William Stapleton’s long statement that gives many details of the
rising of Beverley and the only full account of the siege of Hull.
William had been about to go to London for the law term when the news of
the Lincolnshire rising prevented him. When disturbances broke out in
Beverley he felt that he could not leave Christopher “ever thinking that
it should be slanderous to him to leave his said brother in that
extremity, who for extreme fear, being so feeble and weak, neither able
to flee nor make resistance, was like without great help to fall in
sound (swoon), wherein the said William moved with natural pity, did
comfort him, promising not to flee from him, and therein he took great
comfort.” Orders were given that all the household were to stay indoors,
but as the crowds trooped past to West Wood Green, Mistress Stapleton
“went forth and stood in a close where great numbers came of the other
side of the hedge,” and cried to them, “God’s blessing have ye, and
speed you well in your good purpose.” They asked her why her husband and
his servants did not come out to them, to which she replied, “They be in
the Friars. Go pull them out by the heads.” Her behaviour increased the
“perplexity” of the unfortunate Christopher, who mildly remonstrated,
“What do ye mean except ye would have me, my son and heir, and my
brother cast away and mine heirs for ever disinherited?” The lady merely
retorted that it was God’s quarrel.

The commons now devoted themselves to revenging old grudges. An earnest
supporter of the Archbishop of York in his recent dispute with the town
was nearly killed; and “great quarrels were picked to Robert Raffells of
the same part.” After dark William Stapleton sent a servant to
Christopher Sanderson, advising him to stay the commons if possible, and
begging him in any case to show them that his brother was too impotent
to help them, and to persuade them to spare him and his household on
that account.

Next day, Monday the 9th, the commons assembled again at West Wood
Green, and sent to young Sir Ralph Ellerker to ask him to join them. He
offered to come and give them his advice if they would not require him
to take the oath, for he was, he said, sworn to the King already; but
they refused to exempt him. It then occurred to them that everyone in
the town had taken the oath except the Stapletons at the Friary. Brother
Bonaventure, the Observant friar[737], was among the people, and acted
as a messenger between the house and the Green. He told William that the
commons were threatening to burn the Friary and those in it if they
would not join them, and “was very busy going between the wife of the
said Christopher and the said wild people, oft laying scripture to
maintain their purpose, noting the same to be goodly and specially to
the said William.” In the end they sent one or two honest men to take
Christopher’s oath in the house, and to bring out William and Brian. As
soon as the commons saw them they rushed towards them crying, “with
terrible shouts”—“Captains! Captains!” And when they had taken the oath
the people cried, “Master William Stapleton shall be our captain,”
“which [he] thinketh came by reason of the said Observant in setting him
forth with some praises to the said people or else they would never have
been so earnest of him whom they did not know.” Seeing how wild and
dangerous the mob was, Stapleton thought the wisest thing he could do
was to accept the leadership, and they made a bargain that if he would
be their captain they would obey his orders in everything not contrary
to their oath. He then stayed old grudges and moved them to proceed in
this quarrel as brothers and not make spoil of any man’s goods; and sent
them home for the night. Mistress Stapleton and Brother Bonaventure were
very much pleased with the way things were going, and the friar went
himself in harness with the commons. As the host was breaking up, Roger
Kitchen “came riding forth of town like a man distraught,” crying, “As
many as be true unto the commons follow me,” and led out a party to
raise the neighbouring country[738]. They went to fire Hunsley Beacon,
but it was lying on the ground; however, they made fires of hedges and
haystacks to spread the alarm[739].

The beacons set all the country in a “floughter” as far as they could be
seen. Aske saw them as he crossed the Trent at midnight, after all his
weary hours of waiting. He was in Marshland on the morning of Tuesday,
10 October, and there he found that the gentlemen had received orders
from Sir Brian Hastings, the sheriff, to raise men for the King and join
him at Nottingham. Thereupon they called a meeting of the commons in the
parish church, but suddenly the bells were rung backward there and in
every church in Marshland. Following Aske’s former advice, the bells of
Howdenshire answered from their steeples across the Ouse; by nightfall
the whole countryside had taken up arms[740]. Aske now wrote and
published his first proclamation—the first, that is, which he
acknowledged as his own, and the earliest extant. It is undated, but
there is little doubt that it was published during the rising of
Marshland on 10 October[741]:—

  “Masters, all men to be redie to morow and this nighte and in the
  mornyng to ryng yo^r bellis in every towne and to assemble your selfs
  upon Skypwithe moure and thare apoynte your captayns Master Hussye,
  Master Babthorp and Master Gascoygne and other gentilmen, and to yeff
  (_give_) warnyng to all be yonde the watter to be redy upon payn of
  dethe for the comen Walthe; and make your proclymacion every man to be
  trewe to the kyngs issue, and the noble blode, and preserve the
  churche of god frome spolyng; and to be trewe to the comens and ther
  welthis; and ye shall have to morowe the statutes and causis of your
  assemble and peticion to the kyng, and place of oure meting and all
  other of pour (? _word illegible_) and comen welthe in haste; By me
  Robt. ask cheiff captayn of Marches lande, th’ ile and howden shyre
  Thomas Methm Robt aske yonger. Thomas Saltmerche Wyllm Monketon Master
  ffranke Master cawood captayns of the same.”

This was Robert Aske’s first assumption of authority; it is interesting
to note his title. The Isle is the Isle of Axholme, between the Trent
and the Don (as it then was). Marshland, Yorks., was the triangle of
country between the Don and the Ouse which formed part of the West
Riding. The county boundary still more or less follows the course of the
river now removed. So Aske was first made captain of three wapentakes,
one in Lincolnshire, one in the West Riding, one in the East, each
separated from its neighbour by a great river. As to the other captains,
Robert Aske the younger was doubtless Robert’s nephew, John’s son and
heir, a wild young law student. William Monketon, his brother-in-law,
was his constant companion all through the stirring months that
followed. Saltmarsh and Franke will both reappear hereafter.

At nightfall Aske went to a poor man’s house to hide from his followers
and get a little sleep, but his place of retreat was discovered and a
bodyguard of enthusiastic volunteers burst in and escorted him over the
water into Howdenshire, where the commons were clamouring for his
presence. No one was thinking of sleep here; a large company of commons
were at the house of Sir Thomas Metham, knight, whom they had taken out
of his bed the night before to be their captain. Not being in sympathy
with the rebels he had fled at the first opportunity, and they were now
threatening to burn down his house. Aske exerted his influence to save
it, and soon persuaded them to return quietly to their beds for what
remained of the night. There was to be a general muster of the
Howdenshire men at Ringstanhirst next morning, corresponding to that of
the commons of Marshland on Skipwith Moor. Sir Thomas Metham’s son and
heir became one of Aske’s petty captains, perhaps out of gratitude for
the saving of his inheritance[742].

Others of high rank were also threatened. The commons of Wressell had
risen with the rest of the countryside and cried at the gates of the
Earl of Northumberland’s Castle, “Thousands for a Percy!”[743] The
Earl’s health had been failing ever since the execution of Anne Boleyn,
and his last illness was already upon him. He had good reason to believe
in the King’s power, and he was little inclined to take the part of his
tenants, who hated him heartily enough, but cared little what he did,
once they were convinced he was powerless to act against them. Judging
from their cry, they hoped one of his brothers was with him; but Sir
Thomas was at Seamer in the North Riding, the home of the Dowager
Countess, and Sir Ingram was in Northumberland. After the first general
excitement the invalid Earl was left in comparative peace for a while,
though a watch was kept on his movements and correspondence.

John and Christopher Aske had stolen away from Beverley on Sunday 8 Oct.
without taking the oath, for Christopher afterwards declared that they
were prepared to be “hewn into gobbets” rather than “distain” their
allegiance. On Monday they were at Aughton in “great heaviness,” for
Christopher was in charge of over £100 of the Earl of Cumberland’s
revenues. The danger of having so large a sum while the country was in
such commotion was obvious. After being twice roused from their beds by
false alarms on Monday night, the brothers resolved to risk their trust
on the road rather than in the heart of the disturbance. They set out at
once for Skipton Castle in Craven, forty miles away, where their cousin
the Earl was then lying. They rode separately, and Christopher, going
first, arrived safely at Skipton in due course[744]. He fell in with
Breyar, the sanctuary man, at Tadcaster. This shady individual had also
“stolen away” from Beverley, and was now on his way to Cawood. Once
there, he hastened to the Archbishop’s palace, and, passing himself off
as a servant of the King as was his wont, he informed Lee of the events
at Beverley[745]. The Archbishop had already been disturbed by rumours
of stirrings in the East Riding[746]; Breyar told him that the men of
Beverley, particularly the leaders, Wilson and Kitchen, were threatening
to march on Cawood and kill him; Lee answered resignedly that he knew it
and intended to flee to Lord Darcy at Pontefract, for he was afraid of
his own neighbours and tenants. He gave the “pretended King’s servant” a
horse and twenty shillings to carry a letter to the King[747]. But no
sooner was one messenger despatched than another hastened in with the
news that the commons of Marshland said they were coming to take the
Archbishop for their captain. This seems to have alarmed him even more
than the first report. Robert Crake, Mr Babthorpe and other loyalists
also arrived from Beverley; and, fearing to be surprised at any moment,
the Archbishop determined to set out at once for some place of safety.
Pontefract Castle was hardly ten miles off; Lord Darcy was there, and Dr
Magnus from York had taken refuge with him. Scarborough, the only
alternative, was three times as far off and the country between was
rising if not already up. It was natural that Lee and his companions
should choose the former place. Darcy allowed the Archbishop thirty
servants and with these he took up his abode at Pontefract on Tuesday
the 10th, charging those he left behind to “keep out of the commons
hands.”[748] His tenants rose the same day and captured John Aske,
together with Sir Thomas Metham and Portington of Lincolnshire, at
Cawood ferry; but John Aske “escaped strangely and took him unto the
woods,”[749] being delivered with the other two by Lee’s steward and
helped by him to pass “over the water out of danger.” Next day this man
was himself taken by the commons of Selby, Wistow, and Cawood, but he
had little difficulty in redeeming himself with money[750].

In Beverley the chief business on Tuesday the 10th was bringing in the
neighbouring districts. During the usual muster on West Wood Green
messengers came from Newbald and Cottingham, which had been roused by
the beacons, saying these villages were willing to follow Beverley’s
lead and advance with it. The commons were anxious to go forward at
once, but Stapleton and the other captains thought it better to wait for
the answer to their message to Lincolnshire, which was eagerly expected.
William Stapleton chose for his petty captains his nephew Brian, Richard
Wharton and the bailiff; the commons agreed to “proceed to no act”
without consent of one of these; he made every effort to prevent
“spoilings,” “for he would never have the name of a captain of thieves.”
Christopher Sanderson was sent to ask old Sir Ralph Ellerker to come
next day and use his influence in the town to prevent outrage[751]. On
this day a certain friar and limitor of St Robert’s of Knaresborough
first makes his appearance. His name was Robert Esch or Ashton, and he
had lived at Beverley for some time[752]. Zealous in the cause of the
monasteries and popular among the people from whom he begged, he
appointed himself, as did other brethren of the same house, a kind of
general secretary to the insurgents, attaching himself to no particular
chief, but spreading the rumours and the rebels’ proclamations up and
down the country[753]. At his request Stapleton gave him a “passport” to
travel North, where he promised to “raise all Rydale and Pickering
Lythe.”[754]

On Wednesday, the 11th, after the usual muster, the gentlemen
breakfasted at Sanderson’s house and held a private council with old Sir
Ralph Ellerker, Sir John Milner, and others, who had not taken the oath.
While they were at table a letter came from North Cave wishing to know
when they should go forward. The gentlemen would not consent to move
until news came from Lincolnshire. If we are to believe Stapleton this
was a mere excuse to keep the host quiet. After “long persuasions” they
carried their point, and orders were sent to the surrounding villages
that no advance was to be made until special orders were issued under
the Beverley town seal. But at length William Woodmancy was seen riding
hard for the town, with the welcome news that messengers from the
Lincolnshire host were close at hand, “by whom they had sent their whole
mind.” Guy Kyme, Antony Curtis and Thomas Donne were these long-expected
messengers and were brought before the company assembled on the Green.
Sir Ralph advised the gentlemen to hear the letters and credence apart,
but the commons insisted that all should be done openly. They hardly
wronged their leaders by their suspicion, for “some honest men” had been
secretly sent to Hessle to intercept the message “so as to amend it if
necessary in opening it to the commons,” though they started too late to
carry out their intention. Kyme delivered a letter to Sir Ralph[755];
its brief contents and his lengthy credence have already been
described[756]. Such cheerful tidings naturally raised the enthusiasm of
the people to the highest point. They “counted themselves half ashamed
to be so far behind them” of Lincolnshire. The gentlemen were obliged to
resign all hopes of further stay. Stapleton allowed old Sir Ralph to
depart unsworn to his home, though the commons wanted to keep him by
force.

This day John Hallam rode in from Yorkswold seeking news[757]. He was
only a yeoman, the owner of the Calkhill farm not far from Watton
Priory, but his influence among his neighbours was as great as that of
any gentleman. The respect in which he was held seems rather to have
been owing to his own fearless and determined character than to any
superiority in riches. The general disaffection had already shown itself
in his countryside. On Sunday the parish priest of Watton did not
announce St Wilfrid’s Day, 12 October, and Hallam demanded, before all
the congregation, why it was left out, “for it was wont always to be a
holyday here.” The priest replied that the king had forbidden the
keeping of that and other feasts. When mass was over the whole parish
was talking of nothing else; they declared they would never give up
their holydays, and the passing over of St Wilfrid, a north-country
saint and an archbishop, was probably regarded as a special slight on
Yorkshire. Later in the day the country was further disturbed by the
news of the rising in Beverley. Hallam came to the town on Wednesday,
and went to the house of John Crow. Here he found a great number of
people drinking and discussing the rebellion, with Guy Kyme, Thomas
Donne and Woodmancy in the midst of them. The Lincolnshire men described
the two hosts of Horncastle and Louth “with six knights in each,” and
repeated all the rumours concerning the taking away of church jewels and
the throwing of five parishes into one. Nobody disbelieved them, for
these things seemed hardly more monstrous than the suppression of the
abbeys. The Lincolnshire articles were passing from hand to hand,
everyone being anxious to see them and secure a copy[758]. Kyme was
asked what they did with suppressed monasteries; he answered “nothing”;
and how their men were provided for, to which he answered that those who
could afford it went at their own cost and poor men were helped[759].
Kyme suggested that the men of Beverley should go and aid the
Lincolnshire hosts against the King’s troops. Hallam was sworn by one of
the leaders; and he was given a bill summoning the men of Watton to
appear at Hunsley on St Wilfrid’s Day and take the same part as the men
of Lincolnshire. Hallam carried it home, but found his neighbours
already warned and willing to attend the muster. Copies of this bill
were sent to Cottingham, Hessle and all the townships round; every man
was to be at Hunsley Beacon at nine next morning with horse and harness;
and that night the beacons were fired at Hunsley and Tranby on Humber
side, so that all the country might understand. The summonses were
written out by a friar of St Robert’s of Knaresborough; as Robert Ashton
had left for Rydale this must have been another of this zealous
community. They had all the effect that was intended. “From that time
forward no man could keep his servant at plough, but every man that
could bear a staff went forward towards Hunsley.”[760] Antony Curtis
dined with Stapleton, and after the meal said he must go on into
Holderness (the region, roughly speaking, between Hull and the sea)
which was not yet up[761].

The whole country met at Hunsley Beacon on the morning of Thursday, 12
October, St Wilfrid’s Day. The Lincolnshire articles were read again for
the sake of the outlying villages which had now come in for the first
time. Guy Kyme estimated the men gathered there at about three thousand.
Certain persons were sent to take Smythely, “a man of law dwelling at
Brantingham,” and among them was his great enemy, Hugh Clitheroe by
name. They found Smythely sick in bed, and contented themselves with
taking his oath; he sent back with them his clerk, “horsed and
harnessed, with many fair words.” Some thought that his illness and
goodwill were equally feigned, and when Guy Kyme related how Master
Skipwith, serjeant-at-arms, was carried in a cart with the Lincolnshire
host, they proposed to bring the unfortunate Smythely in the same way.
Stapleton dissuaded them from this barbarity. A curious incident now
occurred. Stapleton was informed that a great treasure of the King’s,
the spoils of the monasteries of Ferriby and Haltemprice lay in
Beckwith’s house at South Cave. “To please the people and save the
goods” Stapleton selected certain honest persons, keeping light persons
away as much as possible, and rode to the house. He found it in charge
of a woman, apparently alone. But after some parleying she admitted that
the priest who had the chests in his keeping was hidden in the house.
Some swashbucklers had just been there, threatening to spoil the goods
and slay the priest, and he wanted no more visitors of the same kidney.
But finding Stapleton’s party did no active damage he came forth
“quivering and shaking for fear.” The captain asked him “what treasure
was in the two great iron chests”; he replied, “Nothing but evidences.”
Stapleton remarked to his companions “that it was like to be so, yet it
was like to have been plate,” and turning again to the priest “bade him
be merry, for he should have no harm, and set forth meat if he had any.”
The priest made them what cheer he could, and begged that they would
protect him. Stapleton gave orders that proclamation should be made “at
the church style, that no man should meddle with any goods there on pain
of death”; anyone who did so was to be brought before him. The grateful
priest thereupon produced a letter showing that the chests contained
only papers. We cannot help wishing that Stapleton’s curiosity had led
him to investigate a little further[762].

While he was away on this mission important news had arrived from Aske.
He was now at the head of the full forces of Howdenshire, and marching
that night to Wighton on the direct road to York. He suggested that the
men of Beverley and the surrounding country should muster “in the
morning at Wighton Hill that he might see us and he would muster on
another hill of the other hand of Wighton that we might see him and his
company.” Guy Kyme and Thomas Donne “much rejoicing thereat, saying they
would not unto Lincolnshire with their finger in their mouths, but they
would tarry and see our musters and the raising of the countries so that
they might be able to declare the same to their host by their own sight
and not by hearsay; for they supposed that Antony Curtis had gone over
to show their host how far they had gone.” They were probably mistaken
in this last opinion, and the news which arrived immediately afterwards
that “all Holderness was up to the sea side” was a better guide to his
real whereabouts[763]. The bells were rung and the countryfolk assembled
at Nuttles on this day; the vicar of Preston helped to administer the
oath. Holderness was a very large wapentake, and each of the three
divisions chose its own head captain—the Middle bailiwick chose Ric.
Tenant, the North bailiwick Wm. Barker, and the South bailiwick Wm.
Ombler[764]. But though they had their own captains they were not slack
in bringing in the gentlemen. They took Sir Christopher Hilliard, one
Grinston, one Clifton, a lawyer of Gray’s Inn “whom they hurt in the
taking,” Ralph Constable, John Wright and others. Many gentlemen of
Holderness and the surrounding country had fled to Hull, the principal
being Sir John Constable and his son, Sir William Constable, young Sir
Ralph Ellerker, Edward Roos, Walter Clifton, son of the wounded man,
Philip Miffin and John Hedge, the King’s servant. They were preparing to
defend the town for the King, but, as many thought, against the will of
the mayor and citizens.

Evening was falling when these tidings reached Beverley, but four
messengers, including Richard Wharton and Wilson, were despatched at
once “to know of the mayor and aldermen of Hull if they would do as we
did or be against us”; their answer was to be sent next day to Wighton
Hill. After holding a council the mayor sent word that he would appoint
as the men of Beverley did, but would send a fuller answer next
day[765].

Before relating the circumstances of the great muster on Friday, it will
be as well to go back and examine the incidents of the rising in
Marshland. After the busy night of Tuesday, Robert Aske found an equally
busy day before him on Wednesday, 11 Oct. He first attended the muster
of Howdenshire at Ringstanhirst as he was on the north bank of the Ouse,
and while he was there messengers arrived from Marshland requesting his
presence at their muster on Hooke Moor, near Whitgift[766]. He crossed
to that town, and there encountered two serving-men who had just brought
the Lincolnshire articles to the house of one Walkington, and were
reading them to the people. One of these men was in a popinjay green
coat, and as this was Lord Darcy’s colour Aske assumed that he
“belonged” to that nobleman; there is no further evidence that he did.
The other was dressed in orange-tawny colour; and they were both
describing the musters in Lincolnshire and the numbers of the host[767].
The articles were taken up to the Moor and read to the assembly. Four of
them were:

 (1) For redress of Abbeys suppressed.

 (2) Repeal of the Statute of Uses.

 (3) Punishment of divers bishops, especially the bishop of Lincoln.

 (4) Release of quindene or tax.

There was another, probably for the putting down of base blood in the
King’s Council. Aske had not before seen the articles actually written;
they were sent “under the hands of divers worshipful men of Lincolnshire
into Yorkshire.”[768] The messengers could not have been those who
appeared at Beverley the same day, for even if Aske did not know Kyme or
Donne, and his “cousin” Antony Curtis had not yet joined them, they
would have been sure to tell him their mission and he could not have
mistaken one of them for a servant of Darcy.

On Thursday 12 Oct. the whole countryside mustered at Howden, and, with
the church cross borne before them like a banner, began their march to
York. Before starting they sent the messengers to Beverley to arrange
the meeting of the two hosts. Wighton was their halting place for the
night[769].

Accordingly, on Friday 13 Oct., Beverley marched to meet their
neighbours at Wighton Hill. The mayor of Hull had sent the promised
messengers, Brown and Harrison who had been sheriffs, Kensey and one
Sawl. According to their promise they “made offer of their town by
commandment of the mayor and aldermen of the same, with as gentle words
as they could speak.” But there were some doubts as to the good faith of
this friendliness, and Guy Kyme significantly described “the extremities
they of Lincolnshire showed towards those who fled from them in spoiling
their goods.” All the East Riding was moving towards Wighton; among
others came Robt. Hotham (who brought in a company from his master the
Earl of Westmorland’s lands in Yorkswold), James Constable of the
Cliffe, Philip Waldeby, “Lygerd of Hullshire,”[770] and John Hallam, who
had not been idle but had “stirred up all Watton, Hutton Cranswick and
the country between that and Driffield and was ringleader of them
all.”[771] George Bawne, who seems to have been a leader from the North
Riding, brought word that Sir George Conyers, Ralph Evers, Tristram
Teshe, Copindale and others had fled to Scarborough; Sir Ralph Evers,
the younger, was the keeper of the castle and was expected to hold out
for the King; Bawne declared his determination to win it “or hasard his
life.”[772] When the muster was complete and the whole host stood in
array on the hill above Wighton, Aske gives their numbers as nine
thousand horse and foot, but then he calls them “Holderness and
Yorkswold”; the main body of Holderness had not yet come up, so this was
probably a good deal above the mark[773].

Stapleton with a party of gentlemen, his petty captains and the
messengers from Lincolnshire and Hull, set forward down the hill towards
Wighton to carry their tidings to the host of Howdenshire. Before they
reached the town they met Aske with the two Rudstons and young Metham
coming to speak with them[774]. The two captains had last seen each
other in London the term before[775]. Aske told Stapleton how he had
been taken by the commons in Lincolnshire, and listened eagerly to the
news from Beverley and Hull[776]. He asked Kyme and Donne if they had
brought any letter for him, but their only message was to Beverley, and
he was disappointed to find that they knew no more of the progress of
events in Lincolnshire than he did himself. They then asked leave to
depart, intending to cross the Humber that night at the tide. Aske “bade
them God be with them, saying they were pilgrims and had a pilgrimage
gate to go.” This is the first reference to the beautiful name, “the
Pilgrimage of Grace,” given by the insurgents to their protest in favour
of the old religion[777].

At Aske’s request the two Stapletons, Philip Waldeby and Robt. Hotham
were elected by the Beverley leaders to represent their company and form
with Aske’s little party a head council. The friendly messages from Hull
were regarded with the greatest suspicion, and in case they proved a
mere blind it was determined that Aske’s host should advance alone on
York, while Stapleton himself, with Robert Hotham to represent the men
of Yorkswold, and young Metham and Nicholas Rudston for Howden, should
ride down to Hull at once, and make arrangements with the mayor for its
formal occupation. The Beverley host was to muster again next morning at
Wighton Hill, and be ready either to advance on York or turn back and
lay siege to Hull; in either case word was to be sent on immediately to
Aske. Once the plan of campaign was settled there was no delay. The men
of Howden turned their faces towards York, and lay that night at
Shipton. Three of the messengers from Hull were kept as pledges for the
safe return of Stapleton’s party, who took the fourth, Sawl, with them.
This precaution shows they had little hope of a favourable reception.

On arriving in Hull they sent Sawl to the mayor to demand an interview.
He returned with the answer that the mayor could not speak with them
that night, though he had consulted with the aldermen before sending
this reply; “which we liked not,” adds Stapleton. Early next morning
they were asked to go to speak with “the gentlemen that were fled” in
the church. Here the situation was discussed with no little heat[778].
Rudston, Aske’s petty captain, who is distinguished from his numerous
relations by the epithet “with a perle in his eye,”[779] was chief
spokesman for the Pilgrims. He tried to persuade the loyalists to come
over to the popular cause. But his efforts were vain, and after a long
argument old Sir John Constable declared he would rather die than join
them, saying “he had rather die with honesty than live with shame.”
Apparently no one could cap this beautiful sentiment, and “after long
communication,” all withdrew to breakfast[780]. After this the
messengers were requested to return to the church, where they were
formally received by the mayor and aldermen, though the loyal gentlemen
were also there. They demanded that the men of the town should be sworn
and join the host “with harness, money or ordnance,” as the messengers
sent from Hull to Wighton had promised in the mayor’s name[781]. The
mayor and aldermen denied any responsibility for the message; “they
would keep their town as the King’s town,” they said. They would allow
all who wished to join the rebels full liberty to depart, but such a
person should have neither horse, harness, meat nor money provided for
him. Young Sir Ralph Ellerker further offered to carry any articles they
wished to send to the King, “and either he would do our message truly or
else (we might) strike off the heads of Ralph, his son and heir, and
Thomas his brother whom we had amongst us, but in no wise he would agree
to come in to us.” The rest of his party were of the same mind[782].

Stapleton and his companions were in haste to go back to Wighton, but
considerable delay was caused by the mayor’s anxiety for his “untrue
messengers.” He refused to let the Beverley captains go without ample
security for the safe return of these men, who were indeed in some
danger. At length Stapleton and his companions were obliged to swear
that they would return to the town and give themselves up if the
messengers did not reach home safely before nightfall. When at last they
arrived at Wighton “all the country was looking for” them. So great was
the excitement that they hastily despatched the false messengers back to
Hull “and made them good countenance” before daring to announce that
their protestations of friendship had been merely lies to gain time, and
that Hull was prepared to hold out. Young Metham was sent forward to
carry the news to Aske. We can imagine with what a mixture of
indignation and fierce pleasure the men of Beverley heard that their
neighbouring enemies were determined to resist them.

The next news that reached Wighton was that the men of Holderness had
come to Beverley, and their captains, chief of whom was Sir Christopher
Hilliard, had advanced as far as Bishop Burton, where they waited to
take council with the Beverley captains. Stapleton with his friends left
the company drawn up in array to wait his return, while he arranged with
the Holderness leaders how to dispose their men about Hull. They decided
to hold a general muster at Wynd Oak near Cottingham at nine o’clock
next morning. Rudston returned to the Beverley men at Wighton Hill to
give out these orders; he was greeted with general indignation. The
commons, weary and irritated with standing to arms all day on the same
spot, wanted to know why Stapleton sent and did not come himself?
Rudston was a Howden man; where were their own captains? The old
suspicions broke out. “The gentlemen,” they muttered, “counselled too
much and would betray them.” So they dispersed grumbling.

Stapleton and his companions had meanwhile ridden straight to Beverley,
where they found three hundred Holderness men mustering on West Wood
Green under their three captains, Barker, Tenant and Ombler. They were
probably obliged to camp there for the night.

As the Beverley men were on the way to Wynd Oak next morning, Stapleton
called them together and reproached them with their “unkindness” and
suspicions of the night before. They had been pleased to choose him to
command them, he said, though he was only a stranger; he thanked them
for that, and he had worked harder than any man among them; but now, as
they were dissatisfied let them make another captain, and whoever it was
he would obey him willingly. The commons had slept off their ill-humour,
and this appeal had the natural effect. “We will have none other
captain,” they cried, “and whosoever after speak against the captain,
the rest to strike him down.” Nor would they hear of anyone else for all
Stapleton could say. Seeing his authority much strengthened for the
moment, he gave orders “for every man to pay honestly” for what he took.
They then advanced to the trysting-place near Cottingham, a village
about two miles north-west of Hull. It was agreed that part of the host
should follow Aske to York, while the rest besieged Hull. The Stapletons
wanted to go with the former, because, as they explained, neither they
nor their servants had any defensive armour with them; all their harness
was at Wighill beyond York. But the Beverley men would by no means
consent to this; if their captains went they would go too. So it was
finally agreed that Rudston should follow Aske with the men of
Yorkswold, reported to be two thousand strong, and Stapleton should stay
and direct the siege, unharnessed as he was. When Rudston had marched,
two wapentakes, one being Holderness and the other Hullshire with
Beverley and Cottingham, which were all in the same wapentake, though
mustered separately under different commanders, remained to surround
Hull.

Barker and Tenant with their two hundred horse and all the Holderness
footmen were stationed on the east, from the Humber along Hull water;
Stapleton with the men of Beverley was on the other side of the water,
at Sculcotes on the north of the town; next him on the west was Thomas
Ellerker with the company from Cottingham, and “at Hull Armitage by
Humber side” lay Sir Christopher Hilliard and all Hullshire, and with
him Ombler and one hundred Holderness horse. The city was thus
completely beleaguered on three sides, the fourth being defended by the
wide expanse of the Humber, over which the usual traffic had ceased to
ply for some days past. Feeling ran high in the Pilgrims’ camp; for
Hull, comparatively an upstart town, had monopolised Beverley’s ancient
trade and claimed the sole right to navigate Hull river. Now it seemed a
day of vengeance had come. The shipping, the pride and wealth of the
town, offered a particularly tempting mark. It was said that a single
barrel of burning tar floated down the river on the ebb tide would
destroy every ship lying there. Even surer ways might be found. “Certain
men of the ... water towns” came to Stapleton and offered “to burn all
the ships in Hull haven and thereby to burn all that part of the town.”
He “warned them in any wise seeing it was a high policy not to disclose
the same, for if they did, the same should be prevented by policy, but
the truth was if it had been opened it had not lain with him to have
saved the town.” Some windmills stood without the walls near the
Beverley gate and Stapleton was at no little pains to save them. He
protested that “notwithstanding this great business he trusted both we
should have our reasonable requests and the King’s highness retake us to
his mercy”; and if all went well there was bound to come a day of
reckoning for property destroyed.

Stapleton’s list of the spoils that did occur is quaint reading. His
headquarters at Sculcotes were a house belonging to the mayor of Hull,
and here his men made free with some hay and grass for their horses.
They also discovered and devoted to their own use a crane, a peacock, a
“cade lame” (whatever that may be) and several young swine. The mayor
evidently kept a good larder, unless the crane and the peacock were
family pets. The commons captured, besides, seventy-five head of oxen,
belonging to the Archbishop’s brother, which seem to have been
considered fair game for some forgotten reason; and Stapleton took ten
or eleven wethers which were being driven in to the besieged, but
returned them to the owner on the capitulation. It was for everyone’s
good that stealing should be put down. Some “honest men” told Stapleton
that his orders were being disobeyed and begged that the offenders might
be punished, “else they should be robbed themselves.” Watch was set and
two men were taken red-handed, one of whom “had been put in trust to
keep their victuals,” while the other was “a naughty fellow, a sanctuary
man of Beverley and a common picker. Whereupon the whole company made
exclamation” and Stapleton caused the two to be taken, and made them
believe they should die. A friar was sent to confess them, and they were
brought out before all men to the waterside. “The sanctuary man was tied
by the middle with a rope to the end of the boat and so hauled over the
water, and several times put down with an oar over the head.” The other
man was a householder of more respectable character, and at the
intercession of his friends was reprieved from his ducking; but both
were banished from the host. This example put an end to “privy
pickings.”

Several people offered Stapleton money, but he always refused it; and
lacking further evidence we must suppose that here, as in other places,
the Pilgrims were provided with ready money by a voluntary tax levied in
each township. Wealthy people sometimes gave money and food, and
unpopular people ransomed themselves. The Prior of Ferriby distributed
twenty nobles among the commons, who wanted him to go with them, as the
price of being left in peace. The Priory of Ferriby seems to have been
the only suppressed house with which Stapleton interfered, and it was an
especially hard case. It was farmed from the King by Sir William
Fairfax, though he had not yet removed the goods from it. He was “a man
of fair possessions,” but of miserly nature, and incurred the anger and
disgust of all his neighbours, rich and poor; for he neither took up his
residence in the priory nor made any attempt to carry on its ancient
hospitality. The men of Swanland, in Ferriby parish, asked Stapleton to
protect the valuables of the deserted house from their present owner,
and he “bade them put two brothers of the same house to lie within it
and to see nothing wasted ... till ... some way was taken with all the
houses.”[783]

On Tuesday, 17 October, Horncliff of Grimsby came from Lincolnshire with
a letter and the news that the insurgents were dispersing. The commons
cried that the letter was a forgery and the man a liar. He was seized
and imprisoned. There is reason to believe that Antony Curtis, who had
been so active in the first days of the rising, was with Horncliff. At
any rate he suffered with him from the unjust if natural anger against
bearers of ill-tidings[784]. The host despatched a letter to
Lincolnshire by William Woodmancy, their first messenger, “wherein ...
was contained the unkindness of Lincolnshire to them who rose by their
motions” in sending them no news. On their side they had plenty to tell,
for posts had come in from other parts of Yorkshire. Aske sent word that
he had taken York without fighting, and from the north came the news
that Sir Thomas Percy had been taken. Shortly afterwards a servant of
Percy’s came with a message from his master to Sir Ralph Ellerker, “who
would be much advised by him” and perhaps induced to join the
Pilgrimage. Stapleton reluctantly let him through to Hull, for he came
“without letter or passport”; and eventually sent him back to Sir Thomas
with a remonstrance against his carelessness “in such extreme business.”
It does not appear if this man, who gave his name as James Aslaby, was a
royal spy or not. Robert Ashton, the friar, returned from the
north-west, saying that he had been at the rising of all Malton; that
Richmondshire was in arms and Lord Latimer taken; and that he intended
to go to the Forest of Knaresborough, but his money was all gone, and
the horse he rode was borrowed from the Prior of Malton, for his own had
been tired out[785]. He was provided with twenty shillings, and
indefatigably set out again.

John Wright, a petty captain of Holderness under Ombler, had been to
Hull to negotiate with Sir Ralph Ellerker, and brought word from him to
Stapleton that he and Sir William Constable were willing to make terms
for themselves. A meeting was arranged at nine o’clock on Wednesday
morning at the Charterhouse without the town walls. Only a few of the
Pilgrimage captains knew of the appointment and these chose Stapleton,
one of the Holderness captains, and at Stapleton’s desire, Marmaduke,
one of Sir William Constable’s own sons, to receive the two knights from
Hull. On the morning of Wednesday, 18 October, the meeting in the
Charterhouse took place. Sir Ralph Ellerker and Sir William Constable
professed themselves willing to come in to the Pilgrims and “do as they
did” provided they were neither obliged to take the oath nor to become
captains. They intimated that many would come in from Hull on these
terms. Stapleton and his fellows readily agreed to this proposal; but
they were very doubtful as to how the commons would take it; the men of
Holderness were particularly unruly and might refuse consent to anything
but an unconditional surrender. The captains were summoned and sent to
announce to their companies that anyone coming from the town was to be
received peaceably and allowed to join their ranks unsworn. To
Stapleton’s relief the commons were “well pleased” with the arrangement.

Next day, Thursday, 19 October, Sir Ralph again met Stapleton and told
him that if Sir John Constable left the town, the mayor and aldermen
would certainly yield; let the captain allow Constable to pass secretly
through the rebel lines and make his escape, and the town would soon be
his. Stapleton was too much a man of honour to listen to this insidious
proposal. He replied that he was stationed there to force the gentlemen
in the town to join the Pilgrimage and no one should escape with his
aid; though if Sir John could get through by himself “God be with him.”
At this point of their deliberations something chanced which hastened
the fall of the town.

On receiving news of Aske’s unopposed entry into York, Stapleton had
written to him for reinforcements, and in answer to this Rudston now
made his appearance on the west of Beverley, near the Hermitage, with
four or five hundred men in battle array about to make an attack. His
appearance surprised everyone. Sir Ralph Ellerker asked Stapleton “if he
knew and could stay them?” Stapleton thought he could and rode off to
speak to the leaders. But the threatened assault had ended the burghers’
indecision. Eland and Knolles, two of the aldermen, were sent to yield
the town to the Pilgrims. Rudston, meeting no resistance, and no doubt
seeing the royal colours flutter down, “lodged his men about and came
himself to the Charterhouse to hear the offer of the men of Hull.” When
he and Stapleton reached the hall they found Sir John Constable and the
other loyal gentlemen there before them. The single condition of the
surrender was that no one in the town was to be forced to take the
Pilgrims’ oath. It was mutually agreed that no troops should enter the
town till next day because at such a late hour it would be difficult to
prevent spoiling. “And that night Sir Ralph Ellerker and Rudston lay
together at the Charterhouse.”[786]

It chanced on that very day Richard Cromwell in Lincoln was writing to
his uncle about the defence of Hull. The letter is so full of details
about the state of Lincolnshire, and the sympathy shown there for the
insurgents beyond the Humber, that we give it in full:—

  “Master Richard Cromwell to My Lord (Privy Seal)

            “Please it your Lordship to be advertised that this daye we
  have newes that ther is up aboute hull in nomber aboute VI thousand
  persons intending to wynne the same which if they cannot do woll set
  fire of it. In which town Sir Rauf Ellerker doth lye to defend the
  same. And he and his company be nere hand famyshed how be it my
  lorde’s grace hath sent oon of Mr Tyrwitte’s sonnes with vitayle gunne
  powder and such other necessarys (?) as they nede to defende them
  selfe unto such tyme as they shall have better socore. And these
  traytors have sent hither into dyvers places within this shyre for
  ayde desyring them to come and they woll so provyde(?) that they shall
  have thar own desyres of any gentlemen or other what so ever he be
  within this shyre. But as yet we here of none in these partes that do
  assemble but all still. And the moost part of the gentlemen here be
  come in and do come in hourely and many of them sworne promysing [to]
  take those that have begon this busyness and treason. And where as the
  kinge’s highness perchaunse thinketh some slakness in my lorde’s grace
  and other how for that they procede not with no greater force against
  thyse Rebells here, In my poore opynyon if his grace with other of his
  moost honourable counsail were present here [he] wold do non other
  then is done considering how busy they are in other parts and also
  fynding the people here so holow which had rather in manner dye then
  one to utter another. And how glad they wold be if they might to go to
  thother Rebells in yorkshire. So that as yet no cruelty may be showed
  but all wrought with wysdom and delibrate policye. And though it hath
  pleased his hyhness to say that they were afrayde of their shadows. In
  faith to advertise your lordship of the treuth I never sawe gentlemen
  forwarder then they have been and is in this mater nor take greter
  paynes day and night than they do to devise and Imagyn which way they
  may best wynne and come by these malefactors and the originalls
  thereof for surely if they shuld take but ii of them cruelly all the
  rest (ad id affisand) be so hollowe that they wold to them in
  yorkshire straight. Ther is but a water betwen and they may in on
  night go a thousand or more. So that they may niether take their
  harness away from them nor yet hinder them any thing roughly. But
  furst wynne them and after knowe the originalles and fynally use them
  according to their deserts. And doubt ye not but your lordship shall
  hereafter right well perceyve and knowe that the surmyse that hath
  been put in his grace’s hed is not true. And for that I perceyve my
  lord’s grace and thother of his highness counsoul here be somwhat
  amased for bicause his highness shuld upon any synyster and untrue
  report judge that they have not done their duety in this case as I
  take god to record they have to my poore Judgement, as much as
  possible is for men. I most humbly besech your good lordship to
  obtayne the king’s moost honorable letters unto them with some
  comfortable and loving words to encourage them agayn and to avoyde
  their dolour. Not doubting but herafter his highness shall right well
  perceyve and prove that they have done thair duetyes and have not been
  negligent in no case or else let me dye for it. Please it you to be
  advertised that this day your servants mylysent and bellowe be comen
  hither unto me who saith that your servant mamby’s father was one of
  the procurers of this treason, wherefor it shall be well don that ye
  detayne your said servant ther with you not suffering hym to depart as
  yet in to these parts and thus I besech almighty god long to preserve
  your lordship in honour. At Lincolne this thursday at VI of the clock
  in the after noon.

                                   “Yo^r humble nephew most bounden
                                     “(signed)      Rch. Crumwell.”[787]

The King’s displeasure with Suffolk and his council was merely his usual
method of getting the greatest possible service out of his servants by
mingling suspicion and threats with favour and fair promises. The guns
and provisions which Suffolk sent to Hull must have fallen into the
Pilgrims’ hands. As to the hollowness of the people and their sympathy
with the Yorkshire rebels, that was only to be expected. Among the
Pilgrims, on the contrary, prevailed a feeling of anger and contempt
against Lincolnshire. After so much talk it seemed ridiculous that the
earlier rising should be ignominiously ended and that without other
agency than the threats of a blazon-coated herald and the blare of his
trumpet; surely there had never been such a fall since the days of
Jericho. And it made a very material difference in the chances of the
rising. Lincolnshire in arms might easily have encouraged the other
midland counties to rise. The royal forces might have been cut off from
their base, surrounded and crushed. But with the example of Lincolnshire
before them and a royal army in their midst the midlands would hardly
venture to show their feelings unless a decisive victory was won. In
fact the northern counties were obliged to depend on themselves alone;
there was no longer the slightest hope of the movement spreading from
shire to shire through all the land. Tremendous as this idea seems to
be, it was certainly what the Pilgrims expected at first, and, what is
more to the point, it was what the King feared. Strong and cunning as
Henry was, even he might have failed if the men of Lincolnshire had
stood by the men of the north.

On Friday, 20 October, Eland, Knolles and John Thorneton opened the
gates of Hull to the captains of the Pilgrimage, the terms of the treaty
being duly observed on both sides. A council was held at Hunsley Beacon,
the two aldermen representing Hull. There was no longer any doubt about
the dispersal of the Lincolnshire rebels and the advance of Suffolk to
Lincoln. The council at Hunsley decided to draw up their articles and
send them to the Duke by the hands of four captains, one from each
company. But before they were fairly written out, a post rode in from
Pontefract with word from Aske that the “Lord Steward was about to give
him battle.” This message must have been despatched on the receipt of
some false intelligence, for Shrewsbury was, as a matter of fact, in no
position to encounter the Pilgrims; but it checked Stapleton’s more
peaceful plans. He considered it impossible for any men from Hull to
reach Pontefract in time to help Aske. But he ordered all his host to
muster at Hunsley at seven o’clock next day to follow up Aske’s advance,
and he quartered a garrison of two hundred Holderness men in Hull. Sir
Ralph Ellerker kept the beacon for that night, though he was only to
fire it in case of urgent need[788]. The irony of events, so triumphant
when news travelled slowly, decreed that the King should write thanking
Sir Ralph Ellerker for his gallant defence of Hull on the day after it
was occupied by the Pilgrims[789].




                              CHAPTER VIII
                         THE PILGRIMS’ ADVANCE


Hull did not fall until 20 October 1536, but its siege was merely an
incident in the Yorkshire rising. We must go back to 13 October to
follow the main course of the insurrection, the advance of the Pilgrims
under Aske to York. Before describing this, it will be convenient to
take a general survey of the disturbed counties and to note the attitude
of those in authority. All through the week the King’s commanders were
too much occupied with Lincolnshire to realise how much more serious was
the trouble in Yorkshire. The news of the rising there does not seem to
have reached Shrewsbury’s camp at Nottingham until Thursday, 12
October[790]. Lord Darcy and Sir Brian Hastings, the sheriff, were left
for a week without instructions or aid to cope with the flowing tide of
insurrection as best they might.

On Tuesday, 10 October, Lord Darcy, at Pontefract, heard of the summons
sent from Beverley to York, and wrote to the lord mayor of York “as a
man of substance, having the rule of the second city of the realm.” He
informed the mayor that the commons of the East Riding were likely to
“invade” York and try to seize the King’s treasure. The mayor must put
the citizens in readiness to resist the rebels and must summon the
gentlemen of the Ainstey to his aid. He need have no fear in opposing
the rebels, as, though “men of high experience in war,” they had no
artillery nor ordnance[791].

At the same time Darcy sent his son Sir George into Marshland to capture
Aske; that night Sir George “laid in wait and would have taken him if he
had kept the appointments he made with gentlemen to lie in their
houses.”[792] Nevertheless Aske escaped.

Sir Brian Hastings wrote to Darcy on 10 October from Hatfield, where he
was lying with 300 men. The rebels of Howdenshire and Marshland intended
to march on York and he advised Darcy to send a force at once “to
overawe their faction in that city.” Meanwhile he would join Darcy and
they might together intercept the rebels on the march and cut them off
from York[793]. In a letter to Fitzwilliam dated the next day (Wednesday
11 October) Hastings said that “though the common people murmur” he was
keeping “Hatfield, Doncaster and all other places under your rule in
good order”; but the people of “all the north are so confederated that
they will not be stayed without great policy.” He thought that the men
who were serving the King should have wages[794].

Darcy answered Sir Brian’s letter of the 10th on Wednesday 11 October.
He wrote that he knew the extent of the rising and was “putting all the
gentlemen within my room in readiness at an hour’s warning, when I shall
know the King’s pleasure.” But neither the King nor the Lord Steward
(Shrewsbury) had answered his letters. “If you have any certainty from
above let me share it.”[795]

Darcy was kept well informed about the spread of the movement not only
in Yorkshire but in the neighbouring counties. He had many friends who
favoured the rebels and acted as spies for him. Darcy used their
information just as it suited him at the moment, sometimes sending it on
to the King, sometimes keeping it for private ends. About the time that
he received Sir Brian Hastings’ letter, full of sturdy loyalty, two
other letters arrived, one from Lancashire, the other from Wakefield,
which, though they contained nothing positively treasonable, were in
tone a marked contrast to Sir Brian’s. The first was from Thomas
Stanley, a priest, who was a kinsman and follower of the Earl of Derby.
He reported that the people of Lancashire “say those that are up are for
the maintenance of church and faith and they will not strike against
them.” There had been some local disturbances, but the Earl of Derby
“attends the King’s command.” The writer concluded “your lordship may
trust the bearer; he is a tall man if need be.”[796] The second letter
was from Thomas Gryce, Darcy’s steward at Wakefield. He described the
general discontent in the country and the sympathy felt for the rebels.
The commissioners were afraid to sit lest their meeting should prove a
signal for a general rising, and weapons were being sent from York, some
of them to the Earl of Derby[797]. The Earl was believed to favour the
rebels’ cause, but, after some wavering, he declared for the King.

Another of Darcy’s informants was Thomas Maunsell, the vicar of Brayton.
Maunsell had been in Howdenshire on Tuesday 10 October, where he was
captured by the commons and accused of being a spy of Sir George Darcy;
this was probably in connection with the attempt to seize Aske. It is
curious that Darcy should have known from the very beginning of the
rising that Aske was the leading spirit; perhaps he owed both this and
his minute knowledge of the captain’s movements to Maunsell. The vicar
was released on Wednesday morning after taking an oath to attend the
muster on Skipwith Moor[798]. He went first to Sir George Darcy and then
to Lord Darcy at Pontefract, who bade him attend the muster and bring a
report of it next day. He returned on Thursday 12 October with the news
that the “commons intended to come over the water to Darcy’s house
(Templehurst) and the (Arch)-bishop’s” (Cawood). Darcy told him to go
home to Brayton, and if the Howdenshire men “did press to come over the
water” (the Ouse) he was to raise all the people on Darcy’s lands, for,
if the commons on the south-west bank of the Ouse were up, the
Howdenshire men would have no motive for crossing, and there would be
less likelihood of damage to property. “Darcy said he would thus do the
King service.”

On Friday 13 October twenty-four men came over the Ouse from Howden to
persuade the West Riding to take part with the rest of the county. The
parts about Brayton, that is the whole west bank of the Ouse from Cawood
to Templehurst, were very willing. The Howden men first “raised the
town” (Brayton or Selby) and the vicar promised to do the rest. On
Sunday 15 October he was at the head of all the force in “Darcy’s
room.”[799]

Meanwhile not only the Archbishop and Archdeacon Magnus[800] but many
gentlemen who found their tenants out of hand fled to Pontefract Castle
to escape the rebels. Sir Robert Constable had captured “Philypis a
captain of the commons in Lincolnshire,” and had taken him to the lords
at Nottingham. He was ordered to return home and pacify the east coast
if possible, but if the insurrection had gone too far for conciliation,
he must turn back to Pontefract and put himself under Darcy’s orders.
Finding that all the East Riding was up, Constable went to Pontefract,
where he found his friend in a desperate state[801].

On Friday 13 October Darcy answered Henry’s gushing letter of
thanks[802] with a long expostulation. He said that the King thanked him
more than he deserved, but only partially answered his previous letters.
The King made no reference to Darcy’s repeated appeals for ordnance and
money. All the East Riding, part of the West, and nearly all the North,
were now up, “in effect all the commons of Yorkshire; and the city of
York favours them.” The host of the East Riding was advancing on York to
seize the King’s treasure, and though Darcy had written to the lord
mayor to “look to the safety of the city” the people were said to be
“lightly disposed.” The loyal gentlemen “cannot trust any but their
household servants.” The Lancashire commons were “of the same mind as
the others,” and were buying arms. Darcy expected the rebels to visit
him shortly, and there was “not one gun in Pontefract Castle ready to
shoot. There is no powder, arrows and bows are few and bad, money and
gunners none, the well, the bridge, houses of office etc. for defence,
much out of frame.” This is the refrain of the letter—send money and “in
any wise haste to the laying of posts,” or the messengers will be cut
off[803].

On the very same day Henry was writing severely to Darcy. He marvelled
that the unlawful assemblies were not yet put down. He had written to
the gentlemen of Yorkshire to muster their forces, and Sir Arthur Darcy,
if Darcy himself was too feeble to take the field, was “to repress the
traitors as he hopes to be reported a loyal servant.”[804] It is easy to
imagine the irritation this letter must have caused at Pontefract. It
was all very well for the King to marvel, but raising men was not only
useless but dangerous, for, though they often only refused to attend the
musters, or stole away to the rebels, if a considerable force was
collected they would probably desert in a body, and carry their leaders
captive to the host of the Pilgrims. General orders were easy to send,
but when they were accompanied by neither money nor particular
instructions, it was impossible to carry them out. Perhaps if Darcy had
taken entire command of the situation without orders, and had spent
unstintingly all the money he had left after keeping his garrison of
thirteen score men entirely at his own expense[805], something more
might have been achieved or at least attempted. For instance, about 14
October the men of Wakefield declared themselves ready to follow Sir
Richard Tempest on the King’s part, but Thomas Tempest, who informed his
father, Sir Richard, of the fact, added that if the rebels arrived first
Wakefield would join them, and they were within ten miles of the
town[806]. Sir Richard wrote to Darcy, offering to come to him at
Pontefract, but Darcy replied that he had no orders, and that Tempest
would be of more use at Wakefield[807].

On Friday, 13 October, Shrewsbury and the other lords at Nottingham sent
Darcy the following letter:

  “My very god lorde in our right hartie maner we comende us unto you
  signyfying unto the same that we sent oon Lancaster the kingis
  harraude of armys unto the rebellious in Lincoln shire with a
  proclamacion, the copie whereof we sende unto you hereinclosed. And
  upon the hering thereof they were contented to departe home to their
  houses, albeit they stayed and taried upon annswere frome my lorde of
  suffolke; and as sone as they here frome hym we think they woll right
  gladly repayre home unto their houses according unto the tenore
  purport and true meanyng of the said proclamacion without any let or
  stay to the contrary. Also whereas the said rebellious had comfort
  oute of yorkshire, for ayde and assistance of those there, Insomyche
  as they have knowledged divers to have come over the watirs of Humber
  owis and Trent they have nowe promysed to staye the botis there, so
  that none shall come over, but be glad to retorn again homewards like
  foolis. And if they dooo come the said rebellious here will (as they
  affirme) be redy to fyght against them as they mynd themselves
  (_illegible_) the Kingis true and faithful subiectis.” (_About eight
  lines at the end are mutilated and illegible._)[808]

There is no sign in this letter that Shrewsbury distrusted Darcy, but
according to Sir Henry Saville, when Sir Arthur Darcy was in
Shrewsbury’s camp[809], the Earl asked how many men Darcy could raise.
Sir Arthur replied, five thousand “if the abbeys might stand.” This
aroused suspicions of Darcy’s loyalty, though the words applied more to
the disposition of the country than to Darcy’s private views. Shrewsbury
bade Sir Arthur, “Go and bid your father stay his country, or I will
turn my back upon yonder traitors and my face upon them.”[810]

Rumour whispered that when Darcy first heard of the rising in
Lincolnshire, he said “Ah, they are up in Lincolnshire. God speed them
well. I would they had done this three years ago, for the world should
have been the better for it.”[811] If this was really his opinion, he
would not be very well pleased with the news of the rebels’ collapse,
but his feelings are not recorded. One of his spies informed him on 14
October that the Lincolnshire host had dispersed, but the writer gave no
hint as to whether the news would be thought good or bad[812]. If, as
seems probable, Darcy had not yet determined which side to take, the
failure of the Lincolnshire rebels would incline him to loyalty.

Darcy’s letter of 13 October arrived in London on the 15th, and as
anxiety about Lincolnshire was almost over, some notice was at last
taken of the Yorkshire trouble. The King wrote to Shrewsbury ordering
him to turn his face towards Yorkshire. If he considered his force
sufficient to strike “without danger to our honour,” he was to “give
them (the rebels) a buffet with all diligence and extremity.” If he
could not venture on this alone, he must wait for the Duke of Norfolk,
who was at Ampthill, and a joint commission of lieutenancy would be sent
to Norfolk and Shrewsbury to go north together[813]. “This matter
hangeth like a fever, one day good, another bad,” wrote Wriothesley from
Windsor to Cromwell in London[814]. The news must have been doubly
unwelcome because when the Lincolnshire revolt collapsed the government
had believed the trouble was over.

On the same day (15 October) the gentlemen in Pontefract Castle wrote to
the lords at Nottingham that, following their advice, they were lying
still; indeed they doubted if they could move with safety, as the
commons were before York with 20,000 men, and the country round was
rapidly taking up arms. However, they relied on certain gentlemen, their
fellows and friends, who were ready to come to the aid of Pontefract
with their servants at an hour’s warning. The rebels, “notwithstanding
your proclamation,” were expected at Pontefract on Tuesday 17 October,
and, as the King had taken no notice of Darcy’s letters about the
weakness of the castle, its defenders were in extreme danger unless
speedy succour were sent. They had heard that terms had been made with
the men of Lincolnshire, and they begged that the same might be offered
to the Yorkshire rebels, as there was even more need of such comfort
here. In a postscript they sent news of the rising of Durham[815].

It was immediately after the despatch of this appeal that the King’s
letter of the 13th arrived. Next morning (16 October) Darcy wrote to
Shrewsbury with a bitterness easy to understand. The King had sent him
letters missive to the neighbouring gentlemen which he had forwarded,
but he doubted if they could be delivered without falling into the
rebels’ hands. The King commanded him to “stay or distress the commons
who are up in the north and commit the heads to sure ward,” but it was
totally out of his power to enter upon any such extensive operations. He
had succeeded in checking the rising in his own neighbourhood for
fourteen days, and had prevented the rebels from joining the
Lincolnshire men, but now their forces in the north and west had
increased so much that it passed his power to meddle with them, for he
was without weapons or money. He dated his letter from “the King’s
strong castle of Pontefract, even the most simply furnished that ever I
think was any to defend.”[816]

While Shrewsbury was waiting for orders at Nottingham and Darcy was
appealing for help at Pontefract, there was nothing to oppose the
advance of the Pilgrims.

On Saturday 14 October Aske’s host reached the Derwent, and seized the
bridges of Kexby and Sutton. A rumour had reached them that Sir Oswald
Wolsthrope and the lord mayor of York had raised the gentlemen of the
Ainstey and the burgesses of the city, and that they were about to pull
down the bridges and hold the river bank against the rebels; but no such
drastic steps had been taken, and the host crossed unmolested at their
leisure. Aske wrote to Stapleton after the crossing to inform him of
their progress, and to ask for a written copy of the Lincolnshire
articles, as he wished to explain by an open proclamation why he “raised
the country between the rivers of Ouse and Derwent.” Stapleton, however,
was unable to satisfy his desire, as the articles brought by Kyme had
disappeared, and no other written copy could be found among the host at
Hull[817].

The Pilgrims were rapidly approaching York, where the authorities had
neither the will nor the power to stand a siege for the King. The mayor
and Sir George Lawson, the treasurer of Berwick who lived at York, wrote
to Henry describing the force “assembled to enter the city contrary to
their allegiance.”[818] Richard Bowyer, a burgess of York and “the
King’s sworn servant,” had acted as a messenger between Darcy and the
lords at Nottingham. He brought the King’s letters missive of 13 October
from Pontefract to William Harrington, the lord mayor of York, and Sir
George Lawson, killing a horse on the way. On receiving these orders to
put the town into a state of defence, they “determined to send for the
gentlemen of the Ainstey to come and help keep the city after the old
custom. Captains were appointed to every ward and bar.” Bowyer was
captain of Botham Bar, and put on his white coat with the red cross of
St George back and front[819]. But the burgesses took no great interest
in the matter, and the common people, inflamed partly by literature from
the busy pens of the friars of Knaresborough, partly by the flight of
the Archbishop, had declared for the Pilgrims as early as Wednesday 11
October[820].

On Sunday 15 October the rebel host held a great muster at the very
gates of the city. They were believed to be 20,000 strong, and were
arrayed in good order, the men of every wapentake forming a separate
company which carried as its ensign a cross from one of its parish
churches[821]. The horsemen were four or five thousand strong[822], and
consisted chiefly of gentlemen with their servants, and of well-to-do
yeomen and burgesses. They were therefore better armed and better
disciplined than the foot soldiers. All the neighbouring districts had
been summoned to join the army at York as soon as possible, and men
poured in hourly[823].

From his position before the gates Aske despatched three petty captains
and a messenger with a summons to the lord mayor and aldermen to give
the Pilgrims a “free passage through the city at their peril.”[824]
Aske’s second proclamation was probably sent with the summons. It was
certainly written about this time and circulated all through the
country. It ran as follows:

  “Lordes, knyghtes, maisters, kynnesmen, and frendes. We perceyve that
  you be infurmyd that thys assemble or pylgrymage that we, by the
  favour and mercy of allmyghty god, do entend to procede in is by cause
  the kynge oure soveragne lord hathe had many imposicyons of us; we
  dowte not but ye do rizte well knowe that to oure power we have ben
  all weys redy in paymentes and pryces to hys hyghnes as eny of hys
  subgettes; and therfor to asserteyne you of the cause of thys oure
  assemble and pylgrymage is thys. For as muche that shuche symple and
  evyll dysposyd persones, beynge of the kynges cownsell, hathe nott
  onely ensensyd hys grace with many and sundry new invencyons, whyche
  be contrary (_to_) the faythe of God and honour to the kynges mayeste
  and the comyn welthe of thys realme, and thereby entendythe to destroy
  the churche of England and the mynysters of the same as ye do well
  knowe as well as we: but also the seyd counsell hathe spoylyd and
  robbid, and farthyr entendynge utterly to spoyle and robbe, the hole
  body of thys realme and that as well you as us, yffe God of hys
  infynyte mercye had not causyd shuche as hathe taken, or hereafter
  shall tacke thys pylgrymage uppon theym, to procede in the same, and
  whethyr all thys aforeseyde be trewe or not we put it to youre
  concynes; and yff none thyncke it be trewe, and do fyght agaynst us
  that entendythe the comyn welthe of this realme and no thynge elles,
  we truste, with the grace of God, ye shall have smale spede; for thys
  pylgrymage we have taken hyt for the preservacyon of crystes churche,
  of thys realme of england, the kynge our soverayne lord, the nobylytie
  and comyns of the same, and to the entent to macke petycion to the
  kynges highnes for the reformacyon of that whyche is amysse within
  thys hys realme and for the punnyshement of the herytykes and
  subverters of the lawes; and we nother for money malys dysplesure to
  noo persons but shuche as be not worthy to remayne nyghe abowte the
  kynge oure soverayne lordes persone. And furthur you knowe, yff you
  shall obtayne, as we truste in God you shall nott, ye put bothe us and
  you and youre heyres and oures in bondage for ever; and further, ye
  are sure of entensyon of Crystes churche curse, and we clere oute of
  the same; and yff we overcum you, then you shalbe in oure wylles.
  Wherfore, for a conclusyon, yff ye wyll not cum on with us for
  reformacyon of the premyssis, we certyfy you by thys oure wrytynge
  that we wyll fyght and dye agaynst both you and all those that shalbe
  abowte towardes to stope us in the seyd pylgremage; and God shalbe
  juge whych shall have hys grace and mercy theryn; and then you shalbe
  jugyd hereafter to be shedders of crystyn blode, and destroers of your
  evyne crystens (_i.e._ _equal Christians_). from Robert Aske chefe
  capytayne off the conventyall assembly on pylgrymage for the same,
  barony and comynality of the same.”[825]

With the summons Aske sent a promise that if the burgesses would admit
his army “in so doing they should not find themselves grieved, but that
they should truly be paid for all such things as they (the rebels) took
there.”[826]

The details of the city’s surrender have not been preserved. Aske, who
was as careful to put the most loyal complexion on the actions of other
people as on his own, said that being “neither fortified with artillery
nor gunpowder the same city was contented to receive them.”[827] The
lord mayor yielded at once to Aske’s summons, but the entry of the
Pilgrims was postponed until the next day. Aske now sent to the mayor a
copy of the Pilgrims’ Articles. According to Bowyer his messenger was “a
Lincolnshire fellow,”[828] but as Stapleton had been unable to send the
Lincolnshire articles, it is probable that Aske drew up a version of his
own for the occasion. The document has been preserved and bears the
endorsement of the lord mayor, Harrington. The handwriting is very bad,
probably because the writer was on horseback, and the document is so
much faded and defaced that it is in parts illegible, but the general
drift of it is clear. It is a mixture of a list of grievances and a
petition to the King, some of the articles being cast in one form and
others in the other:

  (1) By the suppression of so many religious houses the service of God
  is not well performed and the poor are unrelieved.

  (2) We humbly beseech your grace that the act of uses may be
  suppressed, because it restrains the liberty of the people in the
  declaration of their wills concerning their lands, as well in payment
  of their debts, doing the King service, and helping their children.

  (3) The tax or “quindezine” payable next year is leviable of sheep and
  cattle; but the sheep and cattle of your subjects near “the said
  shire” (Yorkshire) are now at this instant time in manner utterly
  decayed. The people will be obliged to pay 4_d._ for a beast and
  12_d._ for twenty sheep, which will be an importunate charge,
  considering their poverty and losses these two years past.

  (4) The King takes of his Council, and has about him, persons of low
  birth and small reputation, who have procured these things for their
  advantage, whom we suspect to be lord Cromwell and Sir Richard Riche,
  Chancellor of the Augmentations.

  (5) There are bishops of the King’s late promotion who have subverted
  the faith of Christ, viz. the bishops of Canterbury, Rochester,
  Worcester, Salisbury, St David’s and Dublin. We think that the
  beginning of all this trouble was the bishop of Lincoln[829].

The demands of the rebels will be discussed at length hereafter, but as
these are the first Yorkshire articles, a few comments may be made on
them. The first article was really the root of the whole matter; Aske
invariably declared that the religious troubles alone would have caused
the insurrection. As to the second it was of much less importance, and
he thought that if it had not been in the petitions of Lincolnshire, it
would not have been remembered. The third article is rather difficult to
understand, but it seems to be a protest against the basis on which the
subsidy was assessed. The fourth and fifth are closely allied to the
first. The people blamed Cromwell and the heretic bishops for the
suppression of the abbeys and all the other unpopular measures. The
protest against “base blood” was made chiefly on account of the mere
chance that several of the unpopular ministers happened to be men of low
birth. It is not necessarily a sign of aristocratic influence. No one
resents the success of an upstart more than members of the class from
which he sprang, and besides this, the people connected the rise in
rents with the acquisition of lands by the new families, though the old
families had for the most part become fully as grasping as their
neighbours. As to the bishops, they had consented to the divorce of
Queen Katharine, the separation from Rome, and the dissolution of the
monasteries, while in the opinion of the conservatives they should have
protested against all these measures. Several of them were also
personally unpopular and were suspected of favouring the New Learning.
These were the articles which the commons of Yorkshire were determined
to lay at the King’s feet with a humble prayer for redress, and if they
“could not so obtain, to get them reformed by sword and battle.”[830]

On Sunday night Aske’s host encamped before York. On Monday 16 October
the Pilgrims entered the city. The morning was spent in making
arrangements for their peaceful entry. A proclamation was issued that
there must be no spoiling, and that everything must be paid for
honestly. It was determined that the soldiers should pay 2_d._ a meal,
and the prices of food and horsemeat were declared both to the host and
to the citizens[831]. As a precaution against disorder, no footmen were
allowed to enter the city, because they were poorer and less easy to
control than the horsemen[832].

At five o’clock in the afternoon Aske at the head of four or five
thousand horsemen entered the city in state[833]. The rebel cavalry rode
through the streets to the Cathedral square. It was “about evensong”;
the Minster doors were thrown open and a long procession came forth—all
the ecclesiastics attached to the Cathedral in full vestments and due
order, from the Treasurer of the See of York to the smallest chorister.
The Treasurer, at the head, welcomed the captain of the faithful commons
who came to defend Christ’s Holy Church, and solemnly led him up the
aisle of the great Cathedral to the High Altar “where he made his
oblation.”[834] The early darkness of mid-autumn must have been falling
when Aske came out after the service. He stopped to post on the Minster
door an order for religious houses suppressed:

  “The religious persons to enter into their houses again and view all
  the goods there or elsewhere, and thereupon a bill made and indented,
  the one party to be kept by the cedant; And there to do divine service
  as the King’s bedemen to such times our petition be granted; And to
  have both victuals, corn and all other things necessary of the farmers
  by bill indented, or else record what they take during the time of our
  Pilgrimage and the time they do divine service of God. And we trust in
  God, that we shall have the right intent of our prayer granted of our
  most dread sovereign lord, plenteously and mercifully. And that no
  person nor persons do move no farmer nor alienate nor take away any
  manner of goods of the aforesaid houses, upon pain of death.

               By all the whole consent of all the herdmen
               of this our Pilgrimage of Grace.”[835]

Aske’s account of the order is—“First, that the prior and convent should
enter into their monasteries suppressed and by bill indented view how
much goods were there remaining which before were theirs, and to keep
the one part and deliver the other part to the King’s farmer, and to
have necessary “victum and vestitum” of the delivery of the said farmer
during the time of our petition to the King’s highness, and to do divine
service of God there, as the King’s bedemen and women. And in case the
farmer refused this to do, then the said convent to take of the same
goods, by the delivery of two indifferent neighbours, by bill indent,
their necessaries for their living during the said time.”[836]

Besides the great monastery of St Mary’s there were many smaller
religious communities in York, and while the great house escaped for the
present, the others had fallen under the Act of Suppression. There was
general rejoicing among the citizens at the restoration of the religious
to their homes, where they had been wont to serve God and succour the
poor for so many long centuries. “The commons would needs put them in,”
and followed them with cheering and torchlight to the doors from which
they had been cast out not many months before. Wilfred Holme describes
the scene in his peculiar manner:

         “To the Abbeys suppressed the people they restaurate,
         Rudent incessantly, with clamour excessive,
         Faith and commonwealth, and in the way obviate
         They were with procession and ringing insaciate,
         And the Sacrament Christes body called Eucharistia,
         Was born by Prelates with the crucifix associate,
         With pipes, Drums, Tabrels and Fidlers alway.”[837]

Wherever the religious were restored, “though it were never so late they
sang matins the same night.”[838]

After leaving the Cathedral Aske went to the house of Sir George Lawson,
who was his host, having no choice, as he was sick in bed[839]. Lawson
was supposed to be loyal to the King, but it seems unlikely that his
house should have been the headquarters of a rebel army[840], even for a
few days, unless his sympathies were with the rebels. Aske need not have
gone there if he knew himself unwelcome, for he had many friends in
York.

Robert Aske was now in command of an army of about 20,000 men[841],
horse and foot, without arquebusses or guns, but efficiently equipped
and armed with the ordinary weapons of the period. He was in possession
of the second city of the kingdom and in the heart of a friendly
country. Whatever may be the advantages of such a situation, leisure and
sleep are not among them. He had hardly reached his lodging before
Maunsell, the vicar of Brayton and captain of the commons of Selby, came
to speak with him; and he had not lain down to sleep when about midnight
a messenger arrived from the lords at Pontefract in the person of Thomas
Strangways, Lord Darcy’s steward.

The vicar of Brayton, after raising most of the country between Selby
and Pontefract, on Sunday received a summons to attend the muster before
York next day. He replied that his company was too small, and sent to
Darcy for orders. Strangways came to him from Pontefract and told him to
lie at Bilborough with his company. He was at this village on Monday
afternoon, when he heard that his brother was in danger at York for
refusing to take the Pilgrims’ oath. The vicar set out for the city with
all speed, and managed to see Aske soon after he arrived. He obtained
leave to administer the oath to his brother himself, but that violent
loyalist “on seeing him smote him and drove him from the house.”
Nevertheless the vicar gave out that his brother had taken the oath and
returned to his men at Bilborough. There he found Strangways and another
of Darcy’s gentlemen in harness and on their way to York. They ordered
him to raise Pontefract, Wakefield, and the “towns towards Doncaster”;
he rode forth on this mission and they pursued their way to York[842].
Darcy had given Strangways minute instructions as to his proceedings at
York. He was to obtain from Aske the Pilgrims’ oath and the “articles of
their griefs” for the members of the King’s Council at Pontefract. He
was also to discover the strength of the rebels and the names of their
leaders; finally “if he met any sure friend” he was “to get him to move
the captain and commons to pass by Pontefract Castle, or else delay
their coming. This to give time for succour to arrive.”[843]

It must have been after midnight when Strangways reached York, but he
went straight to Sir George Lawson’s house and found the captain with
his three followers Rudston, Monketon and Gervase Cawood. Strangways
asked for a copy of the oath and articles in the name of his master. The
captain answered that a nobleman of the King’s Council was more likely
to send a spy to discover their numbers than a true messenger to know
their purposes. Darcy’s carefully calculated policy of running with the
hare and hunting with the hounds resulted, as usual, in suspicion on
both sides. But whatever doubt there might be about Darcy, Strangways
himself was at heart with the Pilgrims. He inquired “whether they would
agree to a head captain if the articles pleased him?”[844] and he must
have described the unprepared state of the castle and the disaffection
of the garrison, for Aske was well informed on these points[845]. It is
probable that Strangways offered, in the name of the garrison, to yield
the castle to the rebels, whatever attitude the gentlemen adopted. It
was well known that the latter would be ready to enter upon the
Pilgrimage if a sufficient show of force were made. Darcy would probably
be the ‘head captain’ proposed by his steward. When this was the
attitude of the confidential servant, the inference was that his lord’s
sympathies pointed in the same direction. Aske hastily wrote out “the
oath of Lincolnshire,” and sent it early next morning to
Strangways[846], with orders that he was to leave the city at once, for
a great muster was about to be held, and Aske was determined that no
accurate account of his army should filter through to the King’s
headquarters[847].

On Tuesday 17 October, as soon as the city was awake, all the gentlemen
in York who had joined the Pilgrimage assembled to take counsel with
Aske’s officers in obedience to the captain’s summons. Sir Oswald
Wolsthrope, a man of great influence in York, Plumpton, young Metham,
and Saltmarsh were among the members of the council. They decided that
each gentleman should go to his own friends in the Ainstey and offer
them the oath. Those who accepted it were to come to York at the head of
the men of their own district. Those who refused were to be given
twenty-four hours’ warning, and if at the end of that time they had not
taken the oath, their goods would be seized. There was no need to call
out the commons, as they had armed and mustered not only round York but
“in all parts of Yorkshire and the Bishopric” (Durham)[848]. From
Richmond came the news that the Earl of Westmorland, Lord Latimer, and
Lord Lumley were at the head of the insurgents there[849].

Aske “made and devised the Oath ... without any other man’s advice,”
before this council, at which it was first issued[850]. It was
administered to the gentlemen and was written down for the convenience
of those who carried it about the country.

  “The Oath of the Honourable Men

  Ye shall not enter into this our Pilgrimage of Grace for the
  Commonwealth, but only for the love that ye do bear unto Almighty God
  his faith, and to Holy Church militant and the maintenance thereof, to
  the preservation of the King’s person and his issue, to the purifying
  of the nobility, and to expulse all villein blood and evil councillors
  against the commonwealth from his Grace and his Privy Council of the
  same. And that ye shall not enter into our said Pilgrimage for no
  particular profit to your self, nor to do any displeasure to any
  private person, but by counsel of the commonwealth, nor slay nor
  murder for no envy, but in your hearts put away all fear and dread,
  and take afore you the Cross of Christ, and in your hearts His faith,
  the Restitution of the Church, the suppression of these Heretics and
  their opinions, by all the holy contents of this book.”[851]

There is a loftiness in the call—a ring in the words that, even to-day,
sets a calm Protestant heart beating to the tune of the Pilgrims’ March.
It is very different from the impressive vagueness of the Lincolnshire
oath. The captain was anxious that the chief reason and aim of the
rising should be made plain to all; though perhaps the first phrase,
disclaiming any desire to shirk the citizen’s duty of paying the taxes,
expressed rather what the gentlemen ought to have felt than what they
did feel. This oath and Aske’s second proclamation were sent out to all
parts of the northern counties. They were posted up in Wensleydale and
Swaledale next day. Wherever they appeared, the people were prepared and
expected them[852].

Round York the gentlemen accepted the oath “very willingly when they
were once taken and brought in.”[853] Only a few refused it, and Aske
gave strict orders against any violence being offered to these
loyalists. Their houses and goods were not to be seized until the
twenty-four hours of grace had fully elapsed, and then only by written
authority under the hands of two of the council[854]. Generally the
person to whom warning was given fled at once to friends, or to Skipton,
Scarborough, or Newcastle, where the loyalists were holding out for the
King[855]. Part of the goods of these obdurate ones seems to have gone
to the general fund of the Pilgrimage, but most were simply distributed
among those who were lucky enough to be on the spot. Aske did what he
could to enforce his orders, sending all offenders against them to the
siege of Hull, where Stapleton had discovered an effective method of
dealing with “pickers.”

On Tuesday Aske dined with Lancelot Colins, the Treasurer of York, who
had received him in the Cathedral the night before. This dignitary’s
house was always open to the captains of the Pilgrimage, and they were
welcome to break their fast, dine or sup with him during the whole time
of the rising. He afterwards explained to the King that “for fear he
made them what cheer he could,” but he may be given credit for more
whole-hearted hospitality than he could be expected to acknowledge
afterwards. He admitted that he had given a good deal of money to Aske
and other captains, but added the saving clause that it was only “that
he might tarry at home.”

Lancelot Colins gives several glimpses of life in York while the host
was there. On Wednesday morning, 18 October, he heard that “certain
gentlemen” were threatening to burn down his house simply because, among
the arms on an ornamental tablet over his door, were those of Thomas
Cromwell. Cromwell, of course, was not entitled by birth to bear arms,
and the gentlemen bitterly resented his assumption of their privilege.
Colins had the obnoxious tablet removed, but as the royal arms were also
upon it, this simple action might be construed by his enemies into high
treason[856]. Within the next few days, Colins was involved in the
plundering of a house belonging to William Blytheman[857], who had been
clerk to Legh and Layton during the visitation of the monasteries. He
fled to Newcastle early in October[858]. Colins heard that Blytheman’s
country house had been gutted and hastened to his house in the city to
see if he could save anything for the absent owner[859]. Rudston was in
command of the spoiling party, and Colins secured some papers, the “best
bed, a coat of plate, and what more God knows.”[860] He restored most of
these things on Blytheman’s return home after the rising, and was
thanked for his good offices[861].

While the main body of the Pilgrims lay at York, the vicar of Brayton
was busy about Pontefract. He spent Monday night at Ferrybridge, and on
Tuesday 17 October he made his way to Pontefract and ordered the mayor
to raise the town. He then went to the Priory and received a message
from Darcy, bidding him go on to “Wakefield and the towns towards
Doncaster”; and another message from the Earl of Northumberland at
Wressell, begging him “to come himself to take him, because he would be
taken with no villeins.” The vicar rode on towards Doncaster, passing
through St Oswald’s and Wakefield, which mustered at his summons. A mile
out of Doncaster he was welcomed by six men (aldermen) who took the oath
on the spot, and escorted him into the town, where the mayor and commons
took the oath amidst much enthusiasm. “Never sheep ran faster in a
morning out of their fold than they did to receive the said oath.”[862]
Another of Northumberland’s servants met Maunsell here, and asked him to
give the Earl a passport to go to Topcliff, as the Earl was “crazed” and
could do no harm. In his deposition the vicar said that he granted the
passport, but it is more probable that he refused it, for the Earl,
though very anxious to go to Topcliff, remained at Wressell[863].
Maunsell returned to Ferrybridge on Tuesday night[864].

The garrison of Pontefract Castle had been cut off by the rising of the
town on 17 October. The last messenger who contrived to go southwards
was Sir Arthur Darcy, who carried his father’s final remonstrance to the
King. The “good old lord” bluntly declared that “we in the castle must
in a few days either yield or lose our lives,” and that there was “no
likelihood of vanquishing the commons with any power here.”[865]

The town of Pontefract had from the first refused to supply the castle
with provisions, “after the vicar of Brayton came amongst them they
durst not[866];” but now the townsfolk captured all the supplies which
were being sent in from other places[867], and kept such a close watch
about the castle that Shrewsbury’s messengers found it impossible to
deliver the King’s despatches[868].

All accounts of Darcy’s conduct give evidence of a divided mind. He
could not decide between the claims of loyalty to the Faith and to the
King. “He practised much with the Commons to know their intention, and
often said if he had ordnance they should not have the castle while
there was victual in it. Sometimes he would say he trusted to get the
commons to pass by and that their grudge against the castle was due to
Dr Magnus and the Archbishop.” Before he was so closely beleaguered, he
had received a message from Shrewsbury, which said that the royal troops
were about to advance to Pontefract, and “Darcy seemed glad to hear it,
and afterwards sorry when the Lord Steward (Shrewsbury) came not.”[869]
Perhaps, like the men of Wakefield, he was leaving the decision to
chance, and was prepared to join the party which first came to his
gates. Sir Brian Hastings, who still lay at Hatfield, trusting no one,
not even his own forces, wrote to Shrewsbury at Nottingham on 17 October
that Darcy would probably surrender, as the rebels had taken Pontefract
Priory, and there were above 40,000 of them at York, their captains
being “the worship of the whole shires from Doncaster to Newcastle,”
including Lords Latimer and Scrope, and only excepting the Earls of
Cumberland and Westmorland[870]. The vicar of Brayton was of the same
opinion as Sir Brian, and had good grounds for his belief, as on
Wednesday 18 October, when he was at Pontefract, Strangways came to him
and “showed him how to assault the castle if it were not given up.” The
vicar promptly set out for York, and was the first to bring news of the
rising in Pontefract and Doncaster to the host there. On receiving his
assurances that the castle could not possibly stand a siege[871], Aske
proposed to march to Pontefract immediately, but there was some
dissension in his council. Metham and Saltmarsh, “disdaining that he
should be above them,” opposed the intended advance. Aske, however,
would not give way, but set out with only 300 men for Pontefract[872],
where he found the company raised by Maunsell, of unknown numbers. It is
not certain when the rest of his forces followed him to Pontefract,
perhaps not until after the castle was taken. This was the only occasion
on which anyone disputed his dangerous pre-eminence with the grand
captain.

As soon as Aske arrived at Pontefract, knowing that the soldiers in the
castle favoured him, he sent a letter to the lords with a threat that,
if they did not surrender, he would make an assault the same night. He
rehearsed how the commons were “gnawn in their conscience” with the
spreading of heresy, the suppression of monasteries and other troubles,
and desired that the lords would be mediators to set forth their
grievances to the King. This letter was carried to Darcy by the vicar of
Brayton and William Acclom. Both sides desired a personal interview, and
it was soon arranged that Sir George Darcy’s eldest son should be handed
over to the Pilgrims in pledge for Aske’s safety, while Aske went to
speak with the lords in the castle.

On the morning of Thursday 19 October, 1536, Lord Darcy, constable of
the royal castle of Pontefract, Edward Lee, Archbishop of York, Dr
Magnus, a learned member of the King’s Council, Sir Robert Constable of
Flamborough, and all the knights and gentlemen in the castle, including
Sir George Darcy, Sir Robert Neville, Sir John Dawnye, Sir Henry
Everingham, Sir John Wentworth, Sir Robert Oughtred, Henry Ryder,
William Babthorpe, John Acclom and above forty more[873], assembled in
the state chamber to meet Robert Aske, captain of the commons, and to
hear him plead the cause of the Pilgrimage of Grace[874]. There is
something extremely dramatic in this picture of the single man, who
spoke for thousands, opposed to the crowd of lords and knights,
apparently so much stronger, actually at his mercy. He came, he said, to
declare the griefs of the commons, for the redress of which they had
entered on that holy pilgrimage,—

  “And how, first, that the lords spiritual had not done their duty, in
  that they had not been plain with the King’s highness for the speedy
  remedy and quenching of the said heresies, and the preachers thereof,
  and for the suffering of the same, and for the ornaments of the
  churches and abbeys suppressed, and the violating of relics by the
  suppressors, with the unreverent demeanour of the doers thereof, with
  abuse of the visitors, and their impositions taken extraordinary, and
  other their negligences in not doing their duty, as well to their
  sovereign as to the commons. And to the lords temporal, the said Aske
  declared they had misused themselves, in that they, semblable, had not
  so providently ordered and declared to his said highness the poverty
  of his realm, and that part specially, and wherein their griefs might
  ensue, whereby all dangers might have been avoided; for insomuch as in
  the north parts much of the relief of the commons was by succour of
  abbeys, and that before this last statute thereof made, the King’s
  highness had no money out of that shire in a manner yearly, for his
  grace’s revenues there yearly went to the finding of Berwick. And that
  now the profits of abbeys suppressed, tenths and first fruits, went
  out of those parts. By occasion whereof, within short space or (_of_)
  years, there should be no money nor treasure in those parts, neither
  the tenant to have to pay his rents to the lord, nor the lord to have
  money to do the King service withal, for so much as in those parts was
  neither the presence of his grace, execution of his laws, nor yet but
  little recourse of merchandise, so that of necessity the said country
  should either ‘patyssh’ (_make terms_) with the Scots, or of very
  poverty enforced to make commotions or rebellions; and that the lords
  knew the same to be true and had not done their duty, for that they
  had not declared the said poverty of the said country to the King’s
  highness, and the danger that otherwise his grace would ensue,
  alleging the whole blame to them the nobility therein, with other like
  reasons.”[875]

Finally he “required those present to join them and deliver the castle,”
adding, says Archbishop Lee, “that if we refused he had ways to
constrain us, and we should find them people without mercy.”[876]

After a brief discussion, in which the Archbishop firmly refused Darcy’s
polite desire that he would answer first, Darcy replied “that he neither
could nor would deliver the King’s castle”; as to the commons’
grievances, he would consult with his friends and then answer them, but
if the castle had only been well furnished with provisions and weapons,
Aske should have had neither “the tone ne the toodre” (the one nor the
other—that is, neither castle nor answer) “but to his pain.”

Lee asked the captain what the Pilgrims wanted him to do. Aske replied
that he and Darcy must use their influence with the King to persuade him
to grant their petition, and in the meanwhile must give them help and
advice. Lee suggested that if he was to be a mediator he had better not
join the host but remain neutral. As for advising them “they must first
consider whether the enterprise were lawful,” but if he might have a
safe conduct, he said that he would go and tell the Pilgrims his opinion
on that point. He probably hoped to get through to Shrewsbury’s camp,
for he was well aware that among the host his life would hardly be safe.
Aske refused him the safe conduct, indignantly “upbraiding him and the
other bishops for not dealing plainly.” Lee afterwards declared that he
replied “they might have his body by constraint, but never his heart in
that cause,” but perhaps he did not say the words very loudly.

Darcy gave no opinion on the justice of the Pilgrims’ demands. He merely
begged for time to take counsel before making his reply. But Aske knew
as well as he did that Shrewsbury had promised to relieve Pontefract and
might possibly do so. Aske felt sure that he could take the castle by
force, but he was anxious to avoid bloodshed and to secure at the same
time influential allies; for these reasons he consented to a truce till
Friday night, though Darcy pressed for a day longer.

When Aske had returned to his own quarters, the garrison held a council.
They had already determined that if no rescue came their only course was
to yield. “Out of 300 men not 140 remained and these were not all sound;
there was only victual for eight or ten days.”[877] “Every day,” said
Darcy later, “the captain wrote to me charging me on my life to yield
the castle or they would burn my house (Templehurst) and kill my son’s
children.”[878] The insurgents were always full of terrifying threats,
but were marvellously slow in executing them. On Friday night Darcy
again begged for more time. At first he was refused, but when he “bade
them £20 for respite till 9 o’clock next morning,” Aske, who needed
every penny he could collect, gave them till 8 a.m., “against which hour
he prepared for his assault.” From Aske’s own statement it appears that,
in spite of exaggerated reports, the rebels at the siege of Pontefract
were not a very numerous force[879]. It is interesting, though useless,
to consider the question whether Darcy might have held the castle
longer. No doubt the government was right in believing that he yielded
willingly. Aske himself admitted, under examination, that the Pilgrims’
attack might have been beaten off for a few days, if the soldiers of the
garrison had remained loyal, but he had been assured that they would
turn their coats as soon as the assault was made. He swore “to try to
the death,” that he had entered into no secret agreement with Darcy,
whom he had never seen before he came to Pontefract on Thursday 19
October. Aske’s explanation is simple and straightforward, and fits in
with the statement of Maunsell, the vicar of Brayton. Thomas Strangways
probably first told Aske that Darcy’s soldiers favoured the Pilgrims.
Later Strangways revealed to Maunsell how to take the castle. Maunsell
admitted that he had received Strangways’ information, but he omitted
the fact, which Aske mentions, that he (Maunsell) went to York and told
Aske that if the Pilgrims attacked Pontefract the castle would
surrender. In short, Aske was in secret communication with the
serving-men, and was sure of their support. He was not in secret
communication with Darcy or any of the other gentlemen in the castle,
and did not believe that Darcy was responsible for Strangways’ offers.

The King’s conviction that there had been a definite arrangement made in
Darcy’s own name to yield the castle to Aske was mistaken, though not
impossible. All Darcy’s conduct bears out the theory that he did not
decide which side to take until the day on which he surrendered the
castle. At the beginning of the rebellion he sent his son to capture
Aske; his steward was received with suspicion by the Pilgrims; he
offered them £20, a large sum of money at that time, for only a few
hours’ delay. If the garrison had really resolved to join the Pilgrims,
further resistance on Darcy’s part was impossible, but perhaps the
soldiers would have been ready to obey Darcy, even though they were
unwilling to fight for the King. If Darcy could have forgotten the fall
of the abbeys, the death of the faithful monks, his own unheeded
protests and galling detention in London,—if he had rallied his failing
strength sufficiently to put on harness and appear himself on the walls
of Pontefract—he might have inspired his wavering followers and
Pontefract Castle might have been held for the King while provisions
lasted. But Darcy had not been persuaded, either by fear of anarchy or
by Henry’s strong personal fascination, to accept despotism as a
necessary form of government, to which he was bound to render implicit
obedience. On the contrary he “set more by the King of Heaven than
twenty kings.”[880] Henry’s despotic government was, in Darcy’s opinion,
dragging the country to ruin and he believed himself called upon as a
Christian, as a patriot and as a statesman, to oppose the King’s
progress on the road which he had chosen. He was deterred from joining
the Pilgrims only by fear of the ugly name of traitor and by a soldier’s
reluctance to yield his post. But he was able to avoid the first by the
theory of ministerial responsibility, which was accepted by the
Pilgrims, though not by the King. Darcy argued that for twenty years
Henry had ruled in an orthodox manner, before he fell under the baleful
influence of Cromwell. Let that archtraitor be removed,—let suitable
councillors be placed about the King by parliament, and Henry would rule
beneficently again. The Pilgrimage was directed not against the King but
against his ministers. As for Darcy’s willingness to yield, his position
was now desperate enough to afford him a good excuse. The rumoured help
was no nearer now than a week before; the King’s distrust had withheld
the money and ammunition which would have enabled him to hold his post.
He saw the “fuel and victuals coming in to him being eaten and drunken
in the street before his face.”[881] Lee describes the final council;
“considering the danger of resistance they determined with sorrow to
yield, and repented that they ever came there where they had expected to
be as safe as if in London.”[882]

At 7 o’clock on the morning of Saturday, 21 October, Darcy made his last
request for more time, which was refused. The castle was then formally
surrendered to Aske, whereupon “the lords spiritual and temporal,
knights and esquires,” solemnly took the Pilgrims’ oath[883].


                         NOTES TO CHAPTER VIII

  Note A. The vicar of Brayton is not a very reliable witness. There is
  no proof that the earlier part of his evidence is false, but he was
  one of the most zealous leaders of the Pilgrimage and in his
  confession, of course, tried to insinuate that he was really devoted
  to the King, laying all his misdemeanour at Darcy’s door. In his
  account of the week from 15 October to 22 October he never mentioned
  his second visit to Aske at York, when he told the captain that
  Pontefract Castle could not hold out.

  Note B. As Darcy was the keeper of Pontefract Castle, the blame for
  its defenceless condition may be laid on his own shoulders. But it
  must be remembered that he had been detained in London for several
  years, and had returned home only a few months before the rebellion.
  All the royal castles in the north were out of repair at this time;
  the walls of Berwick were falling, Carlisle was scarcely defensible,
  Barnard Castle was not in good governance[884]. When fortresses so
  near the Border were neglected, it was not likely that any money would
  be spent over Pontefract, which lay beyond the area of Scots’ raids.
  After the Pilgrimage of Grace, Henry devoted a good deal of attention
  to the repair of the northern defences, on which some of the monastic
  spoils were spent[885].

  Note C. Sir Henry Saville reported these words to Cromwell, but it
  does not appear whether he heard them himself. He was on bad terms
  with Darcy, who was Sir Richard Tempest’s friend.

  Note D. A note is appended to these articles in “The Letters and
  Papers of Henry VIII,” Vol. XI, stating that they are some of the
  articles printed by Speed in his “History of Great Britain.” This is a
  mistake, as the articles printed by Speed are those which the
  Pilgrims’ Council drew up at Pontefract at the beginning of December.
  They are printed in the same volume of “The Letters and Papers,” No.
  1246. Speed says nothing about the York articles, which are the germ
  from which the others grew, but have no further connection with
  them[886].

  Note E. It is impossible to estimate the strength of the Pilgrims’
  host with any accuracy, though it seems certain that rumour
  exaggerated their numbers very much. For instance, it was said that
  the rebels at York numbered 40,000; Wilfred Holme puts their number at
  25,000 and Darcy at 20,000.

  Note F. Two accounts of the first meeting between Aske and Darcy are
  preserved, Aske’s and Archbishop Lee’s. Aske’s account has been
  followed in preference to Lee’s when they differ for the following
  reasons:

  (1) Archbishop Lee wrote his account when he knew himself to be in
  danger and desired above everything to vindicate his loyalty;
  naturally his testimony is more an explanation and excuse for his own
  conduct than a simple statement of fact.

  (2) Aske prepared his narrative for the King when he believed himself
  to be pardoned and taken into favour. As he wrote it in London, far
  away from his authorities, he was obliged to omit many details, but
  this does not lay him open to the charge that he failed to state the
  whole truth.

  (3) Aske’s answers when he was examined in the Tower are fuller and
  bear out his earlier statement. He knew that he was in fact a
  condemned criminal, and to lie was alike useless, dishonourable, and
  certain to be discovered.

  (4) When his accounts are checked by a score of miscellaneous
  depositions drawn up by all sorts of men, he is seldom, if ever, found
  to have misstated a fact. The other evidence either corresponds to
  his, or dovetails with his statements. There is only one exception to
  this, which will be discussed later[887].

  (5) Archbishop Lee has clearly perverted the truth in one or two cases
  in order to put a more loyal complexion on his actions. This is not a
  very serious charge to bring against a weak old gentleman in peril of
  his life. It is difficult to believe that Lee made the frequent loyal
  speeches and defiances which he puts into his own mouth, to the
  confusion of the rebel leaders, for the Pilgrims, on his own showing,
  continued to think that he sympathised with them.

  (6) With one notable exception, hereafter to be mentioned, Lee did
  absolutely nothing either for King or commons. In contrast to this
  indecision, Aske was entirely devoted to his cause. The captain never
  admitted himself to be in the wrong; to the end he justified the
  Pilgrimage as a desperate remedy for a desperate disease. Obviously
  the man who is not ashamed of the truth is less likely to lie than the
  man who deplores it.




                               CHAPTER IX
                     THE EXTENT OF THE INSURRECTION


The main body of the Pilgrims’ army was at Pontefract on 21 October,
1536; leaving them there for the present, we will now follow the history
of the rising in the northern counties from the outbreak of the
insurrection. It will be convenient to carry this account on beyond the
date which has been reached, up to the truce of 27 October, in order
that the narrative may not be broken a second time.

In tracing the course of the rebellion in the far north, it must be
remembered that Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, Westmorland and the
towns of Berwick and Newcastle-upon-Tyne were exempted from the
subsidy,—in fact, taking into consideration the remissions which were
granted to them on account of their sufferings at the hands of the
Scots, it may be said that these places were scarcely taxed at all[888].
Consequently the insurgents lacked one of the bonds which united the
subsidy men in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

In Cumberland and Westmorland the rising was almost entirely directed
against enclosures and unpopular landlords, and received little support
from the gentlemen or, with a few exceptions, from the clergy. In Durham
and Northumberland, on the other hand, the gentry seem to have been more
deeply involved than the commons, owing to the influence of the
disinherited Percys. In the Yorkshire dales, as in Cumberland and
Westmorland, the movement was chiefly social, and was directed against
the Earl of Cumberland, while the gentlemen, who imitated the Earl on a
small scale, naturally supported him against the rabble.

It would be incorrect to say that after the rising of Howdenshire and
Beverley the rebellion spread northwards, as Hexham and the northern
dales had been astir since the end of September, but these minor
disturbances gained significance from the widespread movement further
south.

The only monastery which offered any determined resistance to the Act
for the Dissolution of the Smaller Monasteries was the priory of
Augustinian canons at Hexham. Their house did not really come within the
scope of the Act, as its yearly value was over £200, but for some reason
or other it was included among those to be suppressed[889]. The house
had suffered in the Scots’ wars, and there is reason to believe that its
condition was not very good, either financially or morally, but it was
of great importance as a centre of hospitality in the barren region
between England and Scotland. On 23 April, 1536, Archbishop Lee wrote to
Cromwell begging that it might be spared because “wise men that know the
Borders think that the lands thereof, although they were ten times as
much, can not countervail the damage that is like to ensue if it be
suppressed; and some way there is never a house between Scotland and the
lordship of Hexham; and men fear if the monastery go down, that in
process all shall be waste much within the land.”[890] It seems probable
that the canons received a royal exemption from the Act, or that the
monastery was immediately refounded, but later in the year they must
have heard that they were again in danger, whereupon the prior, Edward
Jay, went up to London to try to make terms with Cromwell. He was
unsuccessful, however, and returned sadly home by way of York. There he
waited on the Archbishop, who received him in his barge, and in the
presence of his chaplains and servants warned Jay to submit to the
King’s will without attempting any resistance[891].

The date of this interview is uncertain, but it seems to have been at
the end of September, and when the prior returned home he found that the
Archbishop’s advice had come too late. In his absence the sub-prior and
the master of the dependent cell of Ovingham (two separate persons, not
the same man) had laid in weapons for the defence of the monastery and
had roused the people, who were the more easily moved as the hated Sir
Reynold Carnaby had received the grant of its lands[892].

On 28 September, before the prior’s return, the four commissioners for
the dissolution were warned at Dilston that they would be resisted. Two
of them who were local men, Robert Collingwood and Lionel Gray, rode on
with a few servants to reconnoitre. They found the streets of Hexham
full of armed men, the alarm bells ringing, and the gates of the Priory
shut. The commissioners took up their stand outside, and parleyed with
the master of Ovingham, who appeared on the leads of the monastery in
harness, accompanied by servants in arms. His first words were, “We be
twenty brethren in this house, and we shall die all, or that ye shall
have this house.” The commissioners advised him to consult with his
brethren before rejecting the royal commission, and the master withdrew
to do so, commanding the hostile crowd which had gathered about the
commissioners to do them no harm. After a space he returned with the
sub-prior in canon’s robes. They brought the royal confirmation,
delivered to the house under the great seal, showed it to the
commissioners, and gave them their answer; “We think it not the king’s
honour to give forth one seal contrary to another, and afore any either
of our lands, goods or houses be taken from us we shall all die, and
that is our full answer.” Gray and Collingwood returned with this reply
to the other commissioners who were waiting for them at a little
distance. They left behind in Hexham three of their servants, who
rejoined them next day, and reported that as soon as their masters had
withdrawn the monastery gates were thrown open, and the canons, all in
harness, accompanied by some sixty armed men, marched out two by two to
a place called the Green, from which they watched the meeting of the
commissioners and their departure. When they were out of sight the
canons returned to the Priory again. Such was the news that greeted
Prior Jay on his return, and he despatched a canon to report it to
Archbishop Lee[893]. Other messengers were hastening from Hexham with
the same news, one from the commissioners to the King[894], and two from
“old Carnaby” of Halton, who sent to his son Sir Reynold, and to the
Archbishop, asking the latter to order the canons to submit[895]. To
each of the messengers the Archbishop replied by bidding the canons
surrender, and Sir Reynold appealed to the Earl of Northumberland who
wrote to Cromwell on 4 October[896]. After receiving the report of the
commissioners on 5 October the King sent orders that Hexham was to be
taken and dissolved by force if necessary. The letter seems to have been
meant for the Earl of Cumberland[897], but the outbreak of the rebellion
in Yorkshire prevented him from executing the order[898].

The King also wrote to Archbishop Lee, whom he suspected of encouraging
the canons, and Lee replied with one of his long, rambling letters of
excuse[899]; his writing is much faded, and difficult to decipher, but
the letter shows that the Prior of Hexham was with him at York at the
time of the commissioners’ visit, and therefore could not have taken
part in the resistance which was offered to them at Hexham. Meanwhile in
Hexhamshire matters were at a deadlock. No one in the neighbourhood
would help the Carnabys against the canons, and no troops could advance
from the south on account of the insurrection in Yorkshire. One of the
local freebooters, little John Heron of Chipchase[900], who was a
follower of Sir Thomas Percy, determined to make use of this state of
affairs for his own advantage. Accordingly on the morning of Sunday 15
October he appeared at Halton, and suggested to old William Carnaby that
he should act as mediator between the two parties. Carnaby, at his wits’
end, accepted the offer, and Heron then rode over to Hexham, where he
said nothing of his negotiations with the opposite party, but warned the
canons that their only chance of saving their lives was to purchase the
help of himself and his friends by granting them certain fees and then
“he doubted not but by the help of his son-in-law Cuthbert Charleton—and
of one Edward Charleton his uncle—with other such friends as they would
make, but all the whole country of Tynedale would die and live in the
quarrel.” The documents granting the fees were drawn up, but not signed,
for the canons were honourably reluctant to join themselves with
thieves, and begged Heron to carry a message to William Carnaby that
they would deliver up the monastery to the commissioners if Sir Reynold
would intercede for their lives and if “they might there serve God and
remain.” Heron returned to Halton, where he passed the night, but merely
said that he was to receive the canons’ final answer on the morrow.
During the night he secretly summoned the men of Tynedale to assemble
next day. In the morning, 16 October, he went again to Hexham, and told
the canons that Sir Reynold would make no terms,—he was resolved to have
the heads of four canons and of four townsmen to send to the King.
Whereupon the canons declared that it was better to defend their lives
while they could than wilfully to kill themselves, and they definitely
threw in their lot with the Tynedale men[901]. It was a fatal though
natural mistake on their part. The rebels’ cause in Northumberland was
as much injured by the alliance with the thieves of Tynedale and
Reedsdale as the King’s was in Cumberland by the loyalty of the thieves
of the “Black Lands,” the valleys of the Esk and Line. When Tynedale and
Reedsdale “broke” no man of substance in Northumberland cared for either
church or King until order was restored. If any power could prevent the
mosstroopers from spoiling and killing up to the very walls of
Newcastle, that power would be welcome though it came directly from
Satan, and since the government was at present opposed to the canons and
their allies, it followed that all honest men in Northumberland
supported the government.

As soon as he had made sure of the canons, on Monday, 16 October, John
Heron rode back to Halton, and sat down cheerfully to dinner, with the
remark that “It is a good sight to see a man eat when he is hungry.” He
knew that he had done a good morning’s work and that in a few hours his
friends of Tynedale would be there, with whose help he proposed to
plunder Halton and carry off Carnaby to Sir Ingram Percy. So far his
plans had been successful, but now his good luck began to leave him, for
dinner was only half done when Archie Robson of Tynedale arrived and
began to talk to John Robson his cousin. Heron guessed what that meant,
and at once drew Carnaby aside and told him that “he could not find them
of Hexham to will to make any stay, but they would do their worst,” and
he therefore advised Carnaby to “defend himself as well as he would for
he knew well they would be at his house straightway, and that Tynedale
was part taken with them.” Carnaby reproached him for giving such short
notice, saying that it was “not like a friend of him done to know such a
purpose, and not to declare it till he had half dined,” but he still
trusted Heron and agreed to ride with him to Chipchase, to avoid the
attack of the Tynedale men, as Heron declared they were in irresistible
force and were resolved to take Carnaby’s life. It was now that Heron’s
luck failed altogether, for it happened that a servant of Sir Reynold
Carnaby’s was riding by St John Ley near Hexham when he saw the men of
Hexhamshire and Tynedale mustering there. By fair words he managed both
to learn their purpose and to escape from their hands, and set off to
carry the news to Halton, taking a short cut in order to arrive before
the host. By chance he saw Heron and Carnaby as they rode towards
Chipchase, and managed to tell Carnaby secretly, “That traitor thief
that rideth with you hath betrayed you, and it will cost you your life
yet; if ye follow counsel I shall warrant you.” Apparently their
pursuers were now in sight, and by his servant’s advice Carnaby begged
Heron to stop and parley with them “because he was of their acquaintance
and allied amongst them,” while he himself rode on to Chipchase. Heron
consented, but sent his son George to watch his victim’s movements.
Carnaby however managed to get rid of George, and as soon as he was out
of sight of the Tynedale men, changed his direction and rode to Langley
Castle. There he was safe, as it was one of Northumberland’s castles,
and apparently held by the Earl’s own men. Meanwhile Heron, seeing that
his prey had escaped, rode back to Halton, which was being plundered by
the Tynedale men. He told Carnaby’s son Thomas that his father commanded
him to leave the house, and persuaded Carnaby’s wife to give him a
casket containing her husband’s money and plate, but at the last moment,
when the casket was actually in Heron’s hands, Arthur Errington, a
kinsman of the Carnabys, seized it from him and galloped off,
accompanied by seven Tynedale men whom he had won to his part. John
Heron pursued them “and put a kerchief as a pensell upon his spear
point” to lead his followers in the chase, but Errington made his
escape. The next day, Tuesday 17 October, Heron returned to Halton, but
found it occupied by Lewis Ogle, brother of Lord Ogle, who was an ally
of the Carnabys. Heron vainly endeavoured to make him desert Halton
“saying he would not tarry there till night, if he knew and perceived as
much as he knew, for ten thousand pounds,” but Ogle was resolute, and at
last Heron “rode home, and never came thither after.”[902]

It is now time to look a little into the matter of dates. The canons had
defied the commissioners on Thursday 28 September, but John Heron did
not make his first move until Sunday 15 October, more than a fortnight
later. On the very day that he rode to Halton the commons of Durham
rose, and at some time during the week Heron’s brother-in-law, John
Lumley, brought him a letter from them containing their articles and
oath[903]. It seems more than likely that he had been in touch with them
from an earlier date, and knew what their movements were to be. The
situation in Northumberland was favourable, as the Earl, who was the
warden of the East Marches, was lying ill at Wressell Castle in
Yorkshire. It is true that Sir Thomas Percy was also in Yorkshire, but
Sir Ingram was at Alnwick[904]. He had been deprived of his office of
vice-warden by the Earl’s command about midsummer, but no new
vice-warden had been appointed[905], and Northumberland had made him
constable of Alnwick Castle in July[906]. In the circumstances it was
natural that he should assume authority and no one seems to have known
what his attitude would be. On hearing of the rising in Tynedale and
Reedsdale he sent out a summons which bore a suspicious resemblance to
the Lincolnshire oath: “It is ordained and appointed that all the
gentlemen of Northumberland shall meet at Alnwick upon Sunday 22 October
at eleven of the clock, for to take an order by all their advices and
consents, what is best for them to do that may be pleasure to Almighty
God and most acceptable service to the King’s highness and for the
common weal of this country and the safeguard of the Marches.”[907] The
gentlemen of Northumberland, knowing nothing of the oath to God, the
King and the Common Weal obeyed the summons readily. Robert Collingwood,
the commissioner who was baffled at Hexham, drew up a list of agenda for
the assembly in amusing contrast to the actual proceedings. It would be
necessary, he wrote, to see that all the gentlemen of Northumberland and
their dependants took one way in the King’s service, and to take
measures against a Scots invasion. As the warden was absent and no
vice-warden had been appointed, two gentlemen must be chosen to act as
lieutenants of the East and Middle Marches, they must be provided with
counsel and support, and all the gentlemen must wait on them as
diligently as if they were each receiving a £20 fee. The two lieutenants
must at once join with the keepers of Tynedale and Reedsdale to take “a
substantial order” to restore peace there, “as ill disposed men rob the
King’s true subjects every night.” Finally everything that was
determined must be written out and signed by all the gentlemen
present[908]. As it turned out Collingwood would have been very much
alarmed if his last suggestion had been enforced.

Sir Ingram Percy in the meanwhile was as politic as the King himself
could have been. He did nothing to alarm the gentlemen before the
meeting, and sent the Abbot of Alnwick and “other friends that he made”
to his brother the Earl of Northumberland at Wressell with a message
that he was true to the King and would repress any disturbances in
Northumberland if he was restored to his office. The Earl believed his
professions and made him sheriff of Northumberland, vice-warden, and
lieutenant of the East Marches “with the fees accustomed.”[909] After
Sir Ingram had sent out the summons to the gentlemen, John Lumley, the
messenger from Durham, arrived at Alnwick, whither he had been sent by
John Heron. He brought the letter of the commons of Durham, signed by
“Captain Poverty,” commanding Sir Ingram to take the oath and to remain
in Northumberland as a protection against the Scots[910]. Sir Ingram
could not put forward the common excuse that he had been forced to take
the oath when it was brought by a single messenger from rebels more than
fifty miles away; in fact, as soon as the gentlemen had assembled on
Sunday 22 October, he attempted no further concealment. Instead of
entering into the business of curbing the mosstroopers, as Collingwood
and the rest expected, he caused the commons’ letter and articles to be
read aloud and then ordered all present to take the oath. A few ventured
to protest, but as they were “enclosed in the said Castle of Alnwick”
with “no remedy but all must swear or else do worse,” they all submitted
and “will they or not, sworn they were.” Having now declared himself,
Sir Ingram did not let the grass grow under his feet. He used all
possible means to induce the gentlemen of Northumberland to join him,
and devoted himself to revenging his own and his brother’s wrongs on the
Carnabys. Accompanied by Sir Humphry Lisle, Robert Swinhoe and John
Roddam with all the forces of Alnwick, he rode to Adderstone by
Bamborough, where he believed that Sir Reynold Carnaby was hiding under
the protection of his wife’s brother Thomas Forster. As a matter of fact
Sir Reynold was at Chillingham Castle with Sir Robert Ellerker and
others of the King’s party, and when Sir Ingram had searched Adderstone
unsuccessfully, he departed swearing “By God’s heart, he would be
revenged of” Sir Reynold Carnaby. Thomas Forster asked what offence Sir
Reynold had done him, and Sir Ingram turned upon him,—“Sir Reynold
Carnaby hath been the destruction of all our blood, for by his means the
king shall be my lord’s heir; and now he thinketh a sport, and to ride
up and down in the country, all we being sworn and he unsworn, and this
I pray you show him, for surely I will be revenged of him.” On the way
back to Alnwick he wished to attack Sir Thomas Grey’s house at Newstead,
but his men dissuaded him. During the same expedition he took possession
of Sir Reynold’s lands at North Charlton, for the use of his brother Sir
Thomas Percy. He afterwards seized all Sir Reynold’s possessions in
Northumberland. Edward Bradford, Sir Reynold’s steward, refused to give
up his master’s rents. Sir Ingram sent out eighteen of his servants who
took him by force “betwixt his parish church and his house,” and carried
him to Alnwick, where he was “laid in the stocks two nights and a day
and kept in hold three days longer,” because Sir Ingram would have him
forswear his master. Bradford probably submitted or his imprisonment
would have been longer.

Sir Ingram now sent to Lionel Gray, porter of Berwick, the other Hexham
commissioner, to Sir Roger Gray and to Sir Robert Ellerker bidding them
come in and take the oath. They all refused, and Lionel Gray was so
closely harried that “the most part of his cattle, by driving and
removing from one place to another for fear of the said Sir Ingram, was
in point of utter loss and destruction.” Hearing that Carnaby, Sir
Robert Ellerker and others had taken refuge in Chillingham Castle, Sir
Ingram was reported to have sent to Berwick for ordnance in order that
he might besiege them, but no actual siege seems ever to have been
attempted[911]. Sir Thomas Clifford, the captain of Berwick[912], was a
friend of Sir Thomas Percy, and although he was the Earl of Cumberland’s
brother, he does not seem to have been so much opposed to the rebels as
the rest of his family. He received messages from the Percys, and when
Lionel Gray begged that his over-driven cattle might be protected in the
fields of Berwick, the captain refused his permission. On St Katharine’s
Day (25 November) Sir Robert Ellerker was told that the Percys were
about to attack Chillingham and sent to Berwick for help. Clifford
turned out the garrison on the alarm, but said that he did not believe
the Percys would attack him, as he was harbouring no fugitives. He asked
Sir Robert Ellerker, “Have ye any of the Carnabys in your house?” Sir
Robert replied, “I believe as well yea as nay, but they or any of the
King’s true subjects shall be welcome to me or to my house.” He then
rode away, hoping that Clifford and his men would follow him, but
instead of this, Clifford ordered the gates to be shut, and only ten men
went with Ellerker[913]. This was in the time of the truce, and the
alarm of an attack on Chillingham came to nothing. Sir Thomas Clifford
was perhaps only anxious to avoid local feuds, because he feared an
attack from Scotland which Berwick was hardly able to resist, as the
walls were out of repair and parts of them had fallen[914].

For the rest of October, until the truce of Doncaster, Sir Ingram in the
exercise of his office as sheriff was busy holding sheriff’s tourns at
Alnwick, where he appointed Sir Humphry Lisle and others as his
officers; as vice-warden he made musters and assemblies “all for the
annoyance of the King’s true subjects that would not be sworn.”[915]

Such was the state of affairs in Northumberland during the first month
of the insurrection; practically the whole country, except a few castles
such as Halton, Chillingham and Langley, were in the Percys’ hands, and
Berwick seems to have been in no position to resist them.

It has already been pointed out that there was probably communication
between the freebooters of Northumberland and the insurgents in Durham
and North Yorkshire. The movement in Mashamshire and Richmond which
spread to Durham began as soon as news reached Ripon of the Lincolnshire
rising; the message came from Archbishop Lee, with orders to his
steward, Lord Latimer, to stay his tenants, but the news had more effect
than the orders[916]. On Thursday 12 October Lord Scrope wrote to the
Earl of Cumberland that the commons of Mashamshire and Nidderdale had
risen the day before (Wednesday 11 October), had occupied Coverham Abbey
and Middleham, and were advancing on Bolton to capture himself; he had
fled into hiding and begged Cumberland to send help to his wife[917].
Lord Latimer and Sir Christopher Danby were taken and sworn by the
commons on the 14th or 15th[918]. John Dakyn, vicar-general of the
diocese of York, had hastened from the city of York to his parish of
Kirkby Ravensworth in Richmond on hearing of the rising at Beverley, but
no sooner had he reached Kirkby Ravensworth than he heard that
Richmondshire had also risen on Friday 13 October. This news made him
fly to a great moor, but he returned to his house and took the oath when
he was told that the commons were about to destroy his goods[919]. His
parishioners then set out to seize Bowes and other gentlemen at Barnard
Castle, and they ordered Dakyn to go to “Galowbaughen” in Richmond to
meet the host of Mashamshire, which was advancing under Lord Latimer and
Sir Christopher Danby. He obeyed their orders for fear of his life, “for
ever the chancellor of Lincoln’s death moved his mind.” All that day he
spent with the Mashamshire men, not daring to say anything displeasing
to them. He believed that Latimer and Danby were equally afraid of their
men[920]. The brothers Robert, George and Richard Bowes and Thomas
Rokeby were the captains in Barnard Castle. They were afterwards accused
of not having the town and castle “in good governance”; at any rate they
surrendered without a stroke on Sunday 15 October, and took over the
command of the rebels[921]. All gentlemen were forced to join, even Sir
Henry Gascoigne, whose mother-in-law had just died and lay unburied, but
the people willingly submitted to Robert Bowes’ authority. He ordered
them to divide into parishes, and to choose four men out of each parish
to command the rest. A letter was despatched to Cleveland, requiring the
people there “with sore comminations” to meet the Richmondshire host at
Oxneyfield by Darlington. Dakyn rejoined the Richmond host on Sunday the
15th, and there in the field one Thomlynson of Bedall, against whom he
had given judgment in a matrimonial case, threatened him with a great
bow, and accused him of being “a maker of the new laws and putter down
of holidays” until with the help of his friends Dakyn quieted him by a
gift of over forty marks[922].

The summons, spread through the countryside, quickly took effect. On the
previous Wednesday, 11 October[923], between two and three hundred men
of Mashamshire and Kirkbyshire assembled in the evening round Jervaux
Abbey and clamoured for the abbot, Adam Sedbarr, to come out to them.
The abbot slipped out by a back door, and took refuge on Witton Fell,
with no companions but his own father and a young boy. He remained in
hiding for four days, only venturing back to the abbey at night, when
the commons had dispersed to their homes. But when Robert Bowes’ summons
was received on Sunday 15 October, the rebels returned to Jervaux and
declared that they would burn it down if the abbot were not delivered up
to them for forbidding his tenants to join them. The terrified monks
sent a messenger to the fell, who found the abbot “in a great crag” and
told him of the commons’ threats, saying that all the brethren cried
“Wo” by him. This message caused him to return, though the risk was
great, and his friends had difficulty in saving him from the commons,
who nearly tore him in pieces, crying “Down with the traitor”! and
“Whoreson traitor, where hast thou been?” “Get a block to strike off his
head upon.” No gentlemen were with them; they had leaders chosen from
among themselves, of whom the abbot names Stavely, Middleton, Leonard
Burgh and Aslaby. They forced the abbot to take the oath, and carried
him off with them, mounted on a barebacked horse, to the meeting at
Oxneyfield on Monday 16 October[924]. Assembled there were Bowes with
the Richmondshire men, Lord Latimer and Sir Christopher Danby with
Mashamshire, and the men of Jervaux with the abbot. Bowes was, as usual,
obliged to “stay old grudges” among his followers, in order to induce
them to act together. They intended to compel all priests who were
“young and able” to join them, and the priests themselves were quite
willing in many cases[925]. The chantry priest of Lartington and the
parish priest of Romaldkirk were particularly active[926]. Dakyn,
however, persuaded Bowes to excuse them all in consideration of their
vows, and afterwards ventured to rebuke the cantarist, when he came to
his house to demand money, saying that his was not the office of a
priest[927].

From Oxneyfield the host advanced to Bishop Auckland on Tuesday 17
October with the object of capturing the Bishop of Durham there. But the
bishop had been warned and had fled at midnight[928]. He made his way to
his own castle of Norham[929], but even there he seems to have found
some difficulty in gaining admittance, for William Franklin, Archdeacon
of Durham, was afterwards praised for his “service in taking Norham
Castle.” Perhaps this means that at the outbreak of the insurrection he
had occupied the castle and prepared to defend it. Franklin afterwards
endeavoured to go south, but was stopped by Darcy[930]. Thomas Parry,
one of the commissioners[931] for suppressing monasteries was more
fortunate. He fled to Norfolk and kept up communications with Franklin,
urging him to try to capture Aske[932]. In the end Franklin escaped and
went to the King[933]. The Bishop of Durham remained at Norham for
several months[934]. For his desertion the commons spoiled his palace at
Bishop Auckland “contrary to their own proclamation.”[935] The
plundering perhaps took place when Bowes had gone to Brancepeth to take
the Earl of Westmorland[936]. Westmorland did not join the rebels
himself, but he took the oath and sent them a friendly answer[937]. What
seems nowadays more extraordinary is that he allowed his son, a boy not
much over 13 years, to ride with the rebels[938]. There is nothing to
indicate that young Lord Neville was captured or that his presence in
the Pilgrim host caused any alarm to his parents.

Sir Thomas Hilton, the sheriff of Durham, was probably at Bishop
Auckland with the bishop. On Monday, after the bishop’s flight, he sent
news of the rising to his cousin John Lord Lumley, who was hunting the
hare at his manor of the Isle[939]. On receiving the warning that “as he
regarded his honour and safeguard of his substance that he should remove
and get him to some sure place for fear of the commons lest he should be
taken of them,” he packed up his plate and jewels and set out to deposit
them in the Maison Dieu at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which was the strongest
house he knew. Arriving at Lumley Castle that night, he stopped to rest
there, but sent on his son George with the valuables to place them in
safety at Newcastle without delay. On Tuesday 17 October Lord Lumley
joined his son at Newcastle, and on Wednesday the 18th Sir Thomas Hilton
arrived there and persuaded him to leave the town by telling him that
the townsfolk would rise if the commons came that way. Hilton and Lumley
went to Hilton Castle, and George Lumley returned to the Isle[940],
which shows that he was not at heart opposed to the rebels, as they were
in possession of all that district, and mustered that day at
Spennymoor[941], some five or six miles away. No sooner had George
Lumley arrived than “certain soldiers out of Richmondshire” came to
summon him to Lord Latimer’s muster, under pain of burning the house. He
accompanied them back to Auckland, when he found, in addition to Lord
Latimer and his men, Sir James Strangways with a thousand men, young
Bowes with a thousand more, Sir Ralph Bulmer and another knight (Sir
Christopher Danby?) each with a company. Lord Latimer administered the
oath to him and asked him where his father was. Lumley replied
“feignedly” that he was in Northumberland, whereupon Latimer bade him
send word that if Lord Lumley did not “come in” the rebels would spoil
his house. They allowed him to return to the Isle, where he received a
message from his wife that his own house at Thweng was in danger. Next
day, Thursday 19 October, he set out for Yorkshire, remained two days at
Thweng, and then led his tenants to York[942].

George Lumley did not see his father again until they met “on the heath
before Doncaster,” and he denied most emphatically that he had received
any message from him or knew anything of his movements in the interval.
His reticence is highly honourable in a son, but very exasperating to an
historian, for very little is known of the rising in the Bishopric until
on Friday 20 October the Lords Neville, Latimer and Lumley rode into
York at the head of 10,000 men, bearing before them the banner of St
Cuthbert. It seems probable that as soon as they were satisfied as to
the disposition of the citizens of Newcastle, Lumley and Hilton set out
and raised Durham without even going through the formality of being
taken by the commons. It would be extremely interesting to know how they
obtained possession of St Cuthbert’s banner, which was in the charge of
the feretrar of Durham Cathedral. The monks seem to have given it up
willingly, as they paid sixteen pence to Thomas Merlay the standard
bearer, but somehow or other it was injured and five shillings were
spent on its repairs[943]. The bishop’s chancery in Durham was spoiled
by the commons[944]. Sir Francis Bigod endeavoured to escape from
Mulgrave to London by sea, but his ship was driven back up the coast of
Durham and he landed at Hartlepool. He was passing the night at the
house of a former mayor of the town when he was warned that the commons
were coming to take him and fled back to his ship. Keeping now the
waters and now the woods he returned to Mulgrave and was captured by the
commons, who took him to York[945].

The date of these events is uncertain, but Hilton and Lumley must have
joined Latimer not later than Thursday 19 October. Meanwhile at
Spennymoor on Wednesday 18 October the host had been divided into two
parts, the one to advance to York, the other to Skipton. Dakyn and two
other aged gentlemen were sent to Jervaux to despatch the posts with
letters from host to host[946], and the Abbot of Jervaux was permitted
to return home with them. His attitude towards the rising seems to have
altered a good deal now that he had discovered it was not a mere riot
among the peasants of his own neighbourhood. At Auckland he was attended
by his chaplain with a bow and sheaf of arrows, and was heard to say
“The King doth cry eighteen pence a day. And I trust we shall have as
many men for eight pence a day.”[947]

The great fortress of Newcastle could play a decisive part in the
success or failure of any northern rising. As has been seen, Lumley and
Hilton endeavoured to make sure of it before setting out for York. The
mayor and corporation were loyal to the King, and had begun to provision
the town and to lay guns on the walls, but they represented only a
narrow oligarchy of wealthy merchants who earlier in Henry’s reign had
won a victory in the Court of Star Chamber over the artisan gilds of the
town[948]. The defeated party naturally inclined to the insurgents. Sir
Thomas Hilton sent two servants about the town to discover the attitude
of the common people, and their report was that no resistance would be
made to the rebels. When the guns were laid on the walls the people said
“that they might lay the guns where they would but they would turn them
when the commons came whither they would.”[949] Thus reassured the rebel
leaders set out on their march, but Robert Brandling the mayor was a
politic man, who set himself to conciliate the commons. His exertions
were encouraged by the arrival of William Blytheman, one of Cromwell’s
commissioners for the suppression of monasteries, who had fled from York
to Newcastle. On his way through Richmondshire he had been helped by
Dakyn, much to the indignation of the commons[950]. When he reached
Newcastle safely he sent in an enthusiastic report of Brandling’s
proceedings[951]. Sadler wrote in a subsequent letter that the mayor
“did so fully reconcile them (the commons) and so handle them that, in
fine, they were determined to live and die with the mayor and his
brethren in the defence and keeping of the town to the King’s use
against all his enemies and rebels.”[952] One of the mayor’s measures of
conciliation was to punish the only heretic in the town, Roger
Dachant[953], who had been obliged to abjure his opinions before the
Bishop of Durham on 24 November 1531[954]. Among other heresies he held
that every priest might be and ought to be married and that monasteries
ought to be pulled down. This view had commended him to the royal
visitors, and he was Blytheman’s friend, so that probably his punishment
was not very severe.

To sum up, the whole of the county of Durham, including the fortresses
of Barnard Castle, Brancepeth, and Durham itself, was in the hands of
the commons, but Newcastle, after wavering, had returned to its loyalty.

It is now time to follow out the history of the siege of Skipton Castle,
to which half the Durham host were despatched on 19 October. The dales
of Yorkshire had never been really settled since the Craven riots of
1535[955]. Dent, Sedbergh and Wensleydale were the regions where hatred
of the government was strongest. About the middle of September William
Breyar the sanctuary man arrived at Dent wearing the livery of the
Queen’s sumpter men. A smith, seeing his coat, said “Thy master is a
thief, for he pulleth down all our churches in the country.” The
bystanders objected to the smith’s disloyalty and said: “It is not the
King’s deed, but the deed of Cromwell, and if we had him here we would
crum him and crum him that he was never so crummed, and if thy master
were here we would new crown him.” Breyar fled for his life, and
complained to the magistrates of Kirkby Lonsdale, who replied “Alas,
man! what didst thou there? for they of Dent and of three other parishes
thereabouts were sworn on Monday last past;” but they did not say to
whom they were sworn, nor what the oath was. About a week later Breyar
heard that the insurrection in Lincolnshire had just broken out[956].
Darcy wrote from Templehurst on Friday 6 October to warn the King and
the Earl of Cumberland of stirrings in the dales[957], but Cumberland
did not take the matter seriously. He was at Skipton Castle preparing to
advance against Hexham Priory[958], and was sending his son Lord
Clifford to join Shrewsbury on his march to Lincoln. He therefore
contented himself by writing on the 8th to Sir James Metcalf and other
local gentlemen to keep order in the dales[959]. On the evening of
Tuesday 10 October Christopher Aske brought him the news of the Beverley
rising[960], and on the 12th came Scrope’s letter about the rising of
Masham and Nidderdale[961]. On the same day the Earl wrote to Henry to
explain his delay in setting out for Hexham[962]. The King sent another
peremptory command that he should go to Northumberland in spite of the
unsettled state of Yorkshire[963], and on Monday 16 October he set out
for Carlisle on his way northward[964]. He had scarcely started when he
was forced to retreat into Skipton Castle again, for on Tuesday the 17th
Darcy wrote from Pontefract to the King that “My lord of Cumberland on
his way to Hexham returned for safety to Skipton Castle.” He added that
Lord Scrope was with the Earl[965], but this was a mistake. On the same
day Sir Brian Hastings told Shrewsbury that Scrope had been taken, and
that next day the rebels would muster at Barnsdale and Barnsley[966].

Up to this point the rising had shown all the features of an
agricultural riot such as had occurred in Craven the year before. The
commons wandered about the county in aimless bands, returning home at
night. They had no particular respect for the church, as their treatment
of the Abbot of Jervaux showed, and they directed their operations
against unpopular landlords. When the abbot was in the Tower he told
Cromwell, “My Lord, ye be greatly deceived thinking that the monks and
canons were the chief doers of this insurrection, for there were other
of more reputation.” He believed that one of the chief grievances was
the lordship of Middleham, for the commons of Piercebridge said they
would make new lords of Middleham and restore divers who were put from
their offices by wrong, and the commons of Masham used similar
language[967]. He had also heard a serving-man say that the commons had
offered to put his master in possession of Sheriffhutton Castle. The
abbot, however, did not know the names of either the master or the man.
He believed that if he told all he knew the King might pardon him, but
yet it would cost him his life if it were known that he had spoken.
Cromwell promised that his revelations should be concealed, and
commanded that he should write down what he knew[968], but nothing more
remains about his secrets. In this district therefore the rising
appeared to men of property as a peasant revolt which threatened their
lives and lands, and must be put down as quickly as possible.

The names of the leaders at the siege of Skipton Castle show the
character of the movement,—they were “Merlione,” evidently a peasant who
took the name from the prophecies, and John Norton of Norton Conyers,
with his two sons Richard and Thomas[969], who were captains in the
Rising of the North thirty-three years later[970]. John Norton took up
arms not only in defence of his religious principles, but also to avenge
the private wrongs that he had suffered at the hands of the Earl of
Cumberland in the feud which has already been described[971]. When the
Earl of Cumberland retreated to Skipton Castle on Tuesday 17 October,
the forces which he had collected dispersed to save their houses, and
only about eighty men remained with him. From these Christopher Aske
“tried out” forty young men, who were sufficient to defend the whole
castle except the barmkyn[972].

Meanwhile the commons at Skipton established communications with the
main body at York, and on the church doors of Swaledale, Wensleydale and
elsewhere was posted Aske’s summons to those who would rescue the
commonwealth from the heresies into which it was falling[973]. The
summons contained no expressions of hostility to the King, and it was
now that some of the gentlemen began to join the commons. Sir Stephen
Hamerton was told that there was such a bill on Giggleswick church door,
probably on Wednesday 18 October. On Thursday he went to see it, but the
commons had taken it down and gone to a muster at Neales Yng. Sir
Stephen was warned by some wives as he returned from hunting that the
commons were searching for him, and he was presently surrounded by three
hundred men “who said he had ruled them, but now they would rule him.”
Their leaders, Jakes and Fawcett, administered the oath to him, and he
was sent with eight others to Skipton Castle to request Cumberland to
join them. The Earl asked them why they rose, and they replied that it
was for fear of Bishopdale, Wensleydale and the other wild regions. He
promised to see them recompensed if they were robbed, but they answered,
“Nay, my lord, but this will not serve us.” The Earl however was firm,
and sent back the message: “I defy you, and do your worst, for I will
not meddle with you.”

On Saturday 21 October Hammerton and his companions returned to
Monubent, the appointed rendezvous, where they were kept waiting, as the
commons had gone to take Nicholas Tempest, the brother of Sir Richard
Tempest[974]. His home was at Bashall in Bolland and he himself had gone
into hiding, but the commons plundered his goods and seized his son
John, a child. They threatened to strike off the boy’s head if his
father would not join them, whereupon Tempest returned and took the
oath[975]; after this he was always earnest for the commons’ cause[976].
On hearing Cumberland’s answer the commons were very angry, “and swore
they would have my lord of Cumberland or die,” but they received letters
from Sawley Abbey asking for help against the Earl of Derby, and in
consequence set out thither on Sunday, 22 October, taking no further
part in the attack on Skipton[977]. Nevertheless the besiegers at this
time were reinforced by half the forces of Richmond and Durham[978].
After two or three days’ siege, finding the castle impregnable without
ordnance, the commons resolved to capture Elinor Lady Clifford, the
daughter of the Duke of Suffolk and of the King’s sister Mary, together
with Lady Clifford’s young son and the Earl’s two daughters, who were
all staying at Bolton Priory. The besiegers threatened to lead them
before the host at the assault next day, and if it was unsuccessful, “to
violate and enforce them with knaves unto my Lord’s great discomfort.”
But before the commons could secure the ladies, Christopher Aske, with
the help only of the vicar of Skipton, a groom and a boy, contrived to
bring them by night over the moors from Bolton and right through the
rebel host into the castle without being detected[979]. Fearing for
their safety, he then wrote Robert Aske “an unkind letter,” telling him
that the Earl would never yield while he lived, and that if Robert
assaulted the castle it “should be a double death, once to see the said
Earl his master slain, and the ladies then being within the castle,
which should be death also to them.” Robert replied in a “like letter of
unkindness,” saying that he would not himself assault the castle but
that the Earl’s enemies would certainly take it if he did not yield. He
was led to believe this by a letter from the Duke of Suffolk to the Earl
which he had intercepted, but he found out afterwards that this letter
referred to Carlisle and not to Skipton[980]. The siege lasted for about
ten days, but the castle was not taken. While it was in progress the
commons robbed the Earl’s parks, and pulled down his houses at Bardon
and Carleton, “which were so strong as to take three days in
breaking.”[981]

Communications were maintained between the besiegers and the other
bodies of the rebels by Dakyn and the elderly gentlemen who had been
placed for that purpose at Jervaux Abbey. The postmasters received some
unsigned letters from Sir Christopher Danby, which they requested him to
sign, and others from William Conyers, and on one occasion Dakyn wrote
to the Abbot of Fountains for post-horses. Copies were taken of all the
letters which passed through their hands, but the copies were left at
the abbey and probably destroyed. One of the gentlemen, Mr Siggiswick,
being aged and sick, returned home, and his place was taken by another
aged man, Mr Catherick[982]. When the two hosts joined at Pontefract,
Dakyn and the others returned home[983], but the siege of Skipton lasted
until Norton was summoned to take part in the first conference at
Doncaster[984]. As soon as the truce was proclaimed Aske wrote to the
commons forbidding them to molest the Earl until the King’s answer was
received, and to the Earl begging him to observe the truce. His orders
were obeyed, although the commons maintained a very hostile
attitude[985].

The only other stronghold in Yorkshire which held out for the King was
Scarborough Castle. It was a royal castle, and the constable was Sir
Ralph Evers[986] the younger, afterwards Ralph first lord Evers. After a
career of some distinction on the border he was killed at the battle of
Ancrum Moor 1545, where it was said that Annan, the general of the
Scots, on seeing his body, burst into tears exclaiming, “God have mercy
on him, for he was a fell cruel man, and over cruel. And welaway that
ever such slaughter and bloodshed should be among Christian men.”[987]
Evers has even his modest niche in literature, for the moody Baron of
Smailholm

             “... came not from where Ancrum Moor,
               Ran red with English blood;
             Where the Douglas true and the bold Buccleuch,
               ’Gainst keen Lord Evers stood.”[988]

Like most keepers of royal castles, he made his profit out of his
charge. He was accused of having taken the lead roofs off the towers and
turrets to make into brewing vessels for himself, and to exchange for
French wines[989]. But in spite of these peccadillos he was true to his
post, and on 17 October Darcy reported that Scarborough was besieged by
the commons[990]. Some of Archbishop Lee’s servants, flying thither from
York, were captured by the besiegers, but rescued and brought into the
castle by Sir Ralph[991]. The commons had seized the town[992], and it
was only the castle which held out.

Very little is known about this early stage of the siege, but it seems
to have been closely maintained. There was afterwards a story that Sir
Ralph and his company had “no sustenance but bread and water for the
space of twenty days,”[993] and his appeals for help to the royal
generals show that he was hard pressed[994]. The rebels had some
ordnance, which they had probably taken from ships in the harbour, and
they knew how to use it, for Sir Ralph reported “of late part of the
wall and the ground of Scarborough Castle is shot down in the outer ward
betwixt the gatehouse and the castle.”[995] Nevertheless the rebels were
baffled and failed to take the castle.

The sieges of Skipton and Scarborough occupied the men of the northern
dales so completely that their contingent had not reached Pontefract on
21 October. Aske reckoned that they would be twelve thousand men, armed
and mounted, under the leadership of Lord Scrope, Sir Christopher Danby,
Sir William Mallory, the Nortons, the Markenfields and others[996].

In contrast to the rising in the Dales, the insurrection in Lancashire
seems to have been caused chiefly by discontent at the royal supremacy
and the suppression of the monasteries.

The principal leader was one Atkinson, probably the same John Atkinson
alias Brotton who had escaped after preventing the vicar of Gisburn from
reading the Act of Supremacy in the parish church on 11 July 1535[997].
The centre of the insurrection was St Mary’s Abbey, Sawley[998], a
monastery which was beloved by the commons, “being the charitable relief
of those parts, and standing in a mountain country and amongst three
forests.”[999] It contained an abbot and twenty-one monks and, as one of
the lesser monasteries, had been dissolved by the commissioners; but on
Thursday 12 October the commons reinstated the brethren[1000], who
naturally threw themselves heart and soul into the pilgrims’ cause. One
of them probably composed the famous song of the Pilgrimage:

                       “Christ Crucified,
                       For thy wounds wide,
                       Us commons guide,
                         That pilgrims be.”[1001]

Among their papers are notes for a sermon maintaining that it is lawful
for a man to fight for the Faith and to resent injuries done to God and
his neighbours[1002].

In several other places the commissioners for the suppression of the
monasteries encountered opposition. The Priory of Conishead had been
threatened in 1525 when Wolsey dissolved a few of the smaller
monasteries, but it was spared at the intercession of the Duke of
Suffolk, who reported it to be “a great help to the people.”[1003] On
Monday 16 October 1536, the prior wrote to William Collins, bailiff of
Kendal, begging him to make proclamation that help should be sent to the
priory, or else all they had would be taken from them[1004]. About this
time or a little earlier, in an undated letter, news was sent to Darcy
that “this week past Manchester College should have been pulled down,
and there would have been a rising, but the commissioners
recoiled.”[1005]

In the neighbouring county of Cheshire the commissioners were actively
resisted. The Abbot of Norton had been deposed and imprisoned,
apparently on a charge of treason[1006]. A servant of Cromwell was put
in his place to effect the surrender of the monastery, which took place
at the beginning of October 1536. On Sunday 8 October when the
commissioners had packed up the jewels and movable property, and were
ready to leave, they were attacked by the former abbot, who had escaped
from prison, and was now at the head of two or three hundred country
people. The commissioners fled, and took refuge in a tower, but they
contrived to send a message to the sheriff, who set out at once, and
came upon the abbot and his followers at 2 o’clock in the morning,
feasting on an ox and other victuals by the light of great fires which
were burning within and without the monastery. They were taken by
surprise and could make no effective resistance. The abbot and three of
his canons were captured, but most of his followers fled under cover of
the darkness. The sheriff reported that the abbot was expecting
reinforcements and “it was thought if it had not been quickly handled
the matter would have grown to further inconvenience.” As it was, the
King’s farmer was restored, and the abbot and canons were imprisoned in
Halton Castle. The King sent orders for their execution, but they were
not carried out at once, and on 30 November the abbot was still living.
His fate is uncertain, but he was taken to Chester Castle for safer
keeping during the insurrection, and it is unlikely that he
escaped[1007].

The commons of Lancashire expressed sympathy with the Lincolnshire
rebels, and there was a widespread belief that the young Earl of Derby
inclined to the same side. His servants were so bitter against Cromwell
that a spy in the household wrote “or your lordship (Cromwell) should be
there as they would have you to be I had liefer to be in Jerusalem to
come home upon my bare feet.”[1008]

Thomas Stanley, a priest who was related to Derby, corresponded with
Lord Darcy, and used all his influence to persuade the Earl to join the
rebels[1009]. For a time it was believed that he had been successful.
Aske showed Bigod a letter from the Earl, and said that he would be with
them in time of need. Afterwards a servant of Bigod’s who was sent with
a letter to Derby, told him that in the rebel host he was “cried
traitor.” The Earl replied that “there was no man in England save the
King who should say such a thing of him but he would lay his sword on
his face,” and he trusted the King would let him “boulte out” the
occasion of this slander[1010]. Perhaps his indignation was so great
because there were some grounds for the rebels’ confidence in his
sympathy. Nicholas Tempest had heard that Derby “had written such a
letter to the lord Darcy that he knew the said lord of Derby would do
little in the matter [on behalf of the King] when it should come to the
point.” He believed that the gentlemen who trusted to Derby to protect
them against the rebels would find themselves deceived in him[1011]. It
was said that Aske called him “false flattering boy” who ran away from
the commons[1012], for when it came to the point he chose to serve the
King.

On Tuesday 10 October Derby received a summons to prepare his men in
case the rebellion should spread from Lincolnshire into those
parts[1013]. The monks of Sawley were restored on the 12th, and on the
19th, Thursday, news of this having reached the King, further orders
were sent to Derby, that instead of joining Shrewsbury on his advance
northwards, as had been intended, he must suppress the rising in
Lancashire, send up the ringleaders and hang the brethren in their
monks’ apparel. A commission under the Privy Seal was sent to him to
authorise his proceedings[1014]. He was given authority over all
Lancashire, Cheshire, North Wales and Staffordshire, excepting the parts
already committed to Shrewsbury. This liberal commission delighted Derby
so much that his previous inclination was overcome and he resolved to
oppose the rebels. He showed the commission to Thomas Stanley, saying
that no ancestor of his had ever had the like, to which Stanley retorted
that “no more should he neither have had” if it had not been to support
Cromwell. A heated argument followed, but Derby was now quite determined
on his course[1015]. The King’s judicious display of confidence had made
an ally of a man who might have been a most dangerous enemy. Derby might
have avenged his ancestor Sir William Stanley by overmatching Henry VIII
if he had thrown his powerful influence into the scale against the King.
But on the other hand, the Earl’s love of ruling and his commanding
position as by far the most important man among the Pilgrims would have
made it necessary for them to acknowledge him their leader, if he had
joined them, and as he was not very wise it may be doubted whether he
had sufficient tact and ability for the position. He would have been but
a doubtful acquisition if he had introduced fresh divisions into their
council. This, however, is only speculation, as Derby prepared to fight
for the King. Nevertheless the commons of Lancashire were wholly in
favour of the rebels, and Stanley believed that if one quarter rose the
rest would. He reported to Darcy that Derby and Lord Monteagle his
cousin would not be able to set out before the following Wednesday, 25
October[1016], and meanwhile the commons were rising in response to a
summons from “Mr Captain” (Aske or Atkinson?). An example of this
summons is preserved in an unsigned letter to “Cousin Townley.” Its date
seems to be Saturday 14 October. The writer had received a letter from
“Mr Captain in this our Pilgrimage of Grace,” containing the order “that
on sight thereof ye fail not with all your company to be on (blank)
Thewseday (Tuesday 17th?) next by (blank) of the clock in all your best
array, as ye will avoid displeasure of the contrary doing.” The writer
was sure that his cousin would be glad to hear this. He had sent orders
to the commons of Lancaster side to take the gentlemen who were
favourable to the Pilgrimage, and was sorry that “Cousin Townley’s”
brother had not taken the oath, as he was inclined to it at one
time[1017]. Sir John Townley and his brother, who was also called John,
are afterwards mentioned as being active on behalf of the commons[1018].

Such a summons was brought by George Willen and William Gaunt from Dent
to Kendal on Saturday 14 October. The men from Dent had come, as they
said, to ask Sir James Leyborne what they should do about the summons,
which they had received from Richmondshire. All the advice they received
from Leyborne the steward and William Collins the bailiff was “not to
meddle.” Next day (Sunday 15 October) the commons under the leadership
of Tom Dockwray and Brian Jobson assembled at daybreak in the North
Street of Kendal, and took all the chief men of the town, rousing them
from their beds and making them swear to be true to God, the King and
their ancient laudable customs. “Mr Leyborne” had fled, but his friends
promised that he would do as the other gentlemen did, and his brother
Nicholas “sealed to a book which was read concerning their customs” in
his name. The complaint that their ancient customs were being violated
was the characteristic grievance of Cumberland and Westmorland, and will
be discussed more fully hereafter. Beyond visiting Mr Leyborne’s house
again on Friday 20 October the commons of Kendal did not do much until
on Saturday 21 October they received a summons from the men of Dent to
muster with them on Monday 23 October at ten o’clock on Ennesmore. Here
a local quarrel broke out, for the Kendal men answered that they “would
have nought to do” with Dent. The reply of the latter was that if Kendal
did not attend the muster, the town should be spoiled by ten thousand
men. For a moment the citizens of Kendal thought of resistance, but in
the end some five hundred of them went to Ennesmore. There they found
that the captains were Atkinson, James Cowper, John Middleton, John
Hebyllthwayte of Sedbergh, James Bushell of Middleton and the vicar of
Clapham, who “was the common swearer and counsellor in all that business
and persuaded the people that they should go to heaven if they died in
that quarrel.” The men of Kendal told the captains that they were sworn,
but that their gentlemen would not come in, to which the others
answered, “If ye cannot rule them, we shall rule them.” A muster was
appointed at Kendal next day at 8 a.m., when they would have spoiled Mr
Leyborne’s house but for the bad weather. On Friday 27 October Leyborne
and the other gentlemen at last came in and were sworn at Kendal
Tollbooth, and on Saturday 28 October they mustered on Kelet Moor and
marched to Lancaster[1019].

It was this rising which prevented Derby from marching on Sawley when he
received the King’s first orders, dated 19 October[1020]. The delay
annoyed Henry so much that on the 28th he wrote repeating his
instructions[1021], but Derby was doing his best. He occupied Preston in
order to lie within striking distance of both the rebel hosts, the one
lying near Kendal, which was said to number five or six thousand men,
but was probably under three thousand, and the other defending Sawley
Abbey. His attitude alarmed the monks of Sawley, who sent into Yorkshire
for help on Saturday 21 October[1022], but his attention was at first
occupied by the Kendal rising. Many fugitives hurried to his protection,
among the first being the abbot and deputy steward of Furness, who came
by water to Lathom before the Earl occupied Preston[1023]. From Lathom
the abbot wrote to his monastery that he had taken a way to be sure both
from King and commons[1024], and while he remained with Derby the monks
levied men for the rebels and sent them money, telling their recruits
“Now must they stick to it or else never, for if they sit down both you
and Holy Church is undone; and if they lack company we will go with them
and live and die with them to defend their most godly pilgrimage.” They
gave out that the King was not right heir to the crown because his
father came in by the sword, and they maintained the papal authority so
earnestly that some of their tenants were willing to wager that the new
laws would be annulled in three years. Four of the monks of Sawley had
been sent to Furness, and three of them, who had capacities[1025],
returned to Sawley when the commons restored it[1026].

The Prior of Cartmell, who had been restored against his will, fled to
the Earl at Preston, where he was joined by Lord Monteagle and Sir
Marmaduke Tunstall, whose houses lay between Lancashire and Westmorland
in the district where the rising took place[1027]. Sir Robert
Bellingham, Aske’s brother-in-law, and other gentlemen were taken and
sworn by the commons but afterwards escaped to Preston. It must have
been for this desertion that the commons threatened to spoil the house
of Aske’s sister Margaret, Sir Robert’s wife, but Aske prevented them
from doing so[1028].

Atkinson entered Lancaster at the head of the host from Dent and Kendal
on Saturday 28 October[1029]. He administered the oath to the mayor and
all the burgesses, but the mayor escaped to his master the Earl of
Derby. The commons threatened to plunder his house if he did not return,
and Derby sent two of his servants to Atkinson to explain that he was
detaining the mayor, and to order the commons to depart in the King’s
name. Atkinson declared that as the mayor would not come, his friends,
who had been his sureties “were forfeitures,” and he gave the servants a
list of their names. As for the rest of the message, the commons had a
pilgrimage for the commonwealth to do, which they would accomplish or
die. The servants replied that if twelve of their chiefs would sign a
promise to fight on Bentham Moor, the Earl would undertake to meet them
there and determine the quarrel by battle. Atkinson answered that they
would not fight unless the Earl hindered their pilgrimage, or attempted
to join the Lord Lieutenant. If they had agreed to fight, Derby had
resolved to wait for help from Cheshire, as he could not trust his
men[1030]. It was probably the report of these messengers which
convinced him that the rebels at Lancaster were not very formidable, and
he therefore turned his attention to Sawley. It was known in Lancaster
on the 28th that the reinforcements from Yorkshire had arrived
there[1031].

After the resolution at Monubent on Saturday 21 October Sir Stephen
Hamerton had gone to Colne and Burnley, marching down one bank of the
Ribble, and Nicholas Tempest had gone to Whalley, marching down the
other bank. The latter reached Whalley on Monday 23 October. For more
than two hours the monks refused to admit him and his three or four
hundred men, but at last they opened their doors for fear of burning.
Tempest administered the oath to the abbot and eight of the brethren.
Sir Stephen Hamerton and his men arrived the same night and the two
leaders recounted their experiences to each other[1032].

Hearing that Derby was doing his best to raise forces against them, they
sent to Walter Strickland to come to their aid, but received no
reply[1033]. Then definite news was brought that Derby intended to set
out from Preston on Monday 30 October and would spend that night with
his forces at Whalley Abbey, which was some four miles from Sawley. The
rebels at once occupied a hill by the abbey, prepared to fall on Derby,
who did not know of their movements[1034]. An encounter between the
rebels and Derby’s forces seemed inevitable, and the situation was on
the whole in favour of the former. It is true that Derby had levied over
eight thousand men, but their loyalty was doubtful[1035]; the Pilgrims
at Sawley, unknown to Derby, had occupied a strong position, and those
at Lancaster were preparing to take him in the rear[1036]. Derby himself
admitted that the roads were very difficult and that there would have
been a great fray “though no doubt the traitors would have been
overthrown.”[1037] Just at this critical moment, at nine o’clock in the
morning on Monday 30 October, Berwick Herald-at-Arms rode into Preston
and delivered to the Earl a letter from Shrewsbury and the other lords,
informing him of the first appointment at Doncaster, and directing him
to “sparple his force and do no hurt.”[1038] After a formal consultation
with the gentlemen present, he disbanded his men and returned to Lathom,
probably with a very thankful heart[1039]. The same news had reached
Whalley in a letter from Aske, forbidding the Pilgrims to meddle with
Derby even if he attacked them, and directing them to withdraw into the
mountains, unless he (Derby) “raised fire,” in which case they must send
by post to Aske. Hearing that the Earl had withdrawn, they also broke up
their forces, and “kept every man his own house, ready to be up and come
together at an hour’s warning.”[1040]

From Lancashire[1041] we turn to Cumberland and Westmorland, where there
had been considerably more enclosing of common land by the landlords
than in the other counties. This was the principal grievance of the
commons in those parts. On 17 August 1536 Sir Thomas Wharton reported to
Cromwell that there had been divers riots in Cumberland, probably
against the enclosures, although one riot was traced to the Bishop of
Carlisle[1042], and was most likely a private feud.

On Sunday 15 October the curate of Kirkby Stephen did not “bid St Luke’s
day (Wednesday 18 October) as a holyday,” which exasperated his
parishioners so much that they threatened to kill him; to pacify them he
was forced to announce the holiday as usual[1043]. Probably it was on
the same day that Robert Thompson, vicar of Brough-under-Stainmore,
received a letter from the commons of Richmondshire which he read aloud
to his parishioners, perhaps in the parish church. The contents of the
letter ran: “Wellbeloved brethren in God, we greet you well, signifying
unto you that we your brethren in Christ have assembled us together and
put us in readiness for the maintenance of the faith of God, His laws
and His Church, and where abbeys was suppressed we have restored them
again and put the religious men into their houses: wherefore we exhort
you to do the same.”[1044] This letter seems to have been signed
“Captain Poverty,” as was the one sent to Sir Ingram Percy[1045].

Next day the men of Kirkby Stephen held a muster on Sandforth Moor in
response to the summons from Richmond, and chose as their captains
Robert Pullen, Nicholas Musgrave, Christopher Blenkinsop and Robert
Hilton. Vicar Thompson went to Penrith that night, to escape from the
commons as he said, but it seems more likely that his object was to
spread the news of the rising. He rejoined the muster next day, Tuesday
17 October, when the commons went to take Sir Thomas Wharton. As he had
fled, they captured his eldest son instead. On Wednesday 18 October they
went to Lamerside Hall, believing that Sir Thomas and other gentlemen
had taken refuge there, but they found only servants. Pullen then issued
an order that the gentlemen should come in by a certain day or their
houses would be plundered, and appointed men bound by oath to collect
the goods which the captains declared forfeit. The leaders agreed that
next day, Thursday 19 October, Pullen and his men should march down one
side of the Eden and Musgrave with his down the other. Pullen’s company
set out and arrived at Penrith the same day, but Musgrave’s band spent
the night at Lowther, where they had in vain hoped to take Sir John
Lowther. Penrith had already risen in response to the summons from
Richmondshire, which had probably been brought by Thompson. Four
captains had been chosen, Anthony Hutton, John Beck, Gilbert Whelpdale
or Whelton, and Thomas Burbeck, who took the names of Charity, Faith,
Poverty and Pity. Gilbert Whelpdale, Captain Poverty, was Robert
Thompson’s brother-in-law, and appointed him his chaplain and secretary.
Pullen’s company spent Thursday night in Penrith and on Friday 20
October set out again. Thompson accompanied them as far as Eamont
Bridge, where the oath was administered to Dudley and other gentlemen,
but he turned back to Penrith at the request of the commons there, in
order that he might help them with his counsel. On the same day they
held a muster on Penrith Fell, where Thompson and the captains organised
their forces as well as they could. “Sir” Edward Perith, who must have
been a priest, was appointed the crossbearer, to carry the cross before
the host. George Corney, another priest, wrote letters to the
neighbouring gentlemen at the dictation of the captains, and Thompson
taught Thomas Berwick, the town-crier, a proclamation to be uttered
before every meeting “to the effect that, as the rulers did not defend
them from thieves and Scots, they had chosen the four captains, who
commanded all to live in peace and to say five _aves_, five _paters_ and
a creed.” The letters were sent to Sir Edward Musgrave, who came in and
took the oath with all the parish of Edenhall and the country round
Penrith. Another muster was held on Saturday 21 October, when the
commons beyond Eden were sworn, and a meeting was appointed on Monday 23
October at Cartlogan Thorns. On Monday the commons of Caldbeck,
Greystoke, Hutton, Shewlton and Sowerby rose and came to Cartlogan
Thorns, bringing with them Bernard Towneley, the chancellor of the
diocese, Richard Bewley, Richard Vachell and other gentlemen. Sir John
Lowther also came to the meeting, “to summon certain men of Sowerby to
keep the day of march,” i.e. the day appointed for a meeting with the
Scots warden. Sir John’s attitude is doubtful; he does not seem to have
been brought in by force, and the commons looked upon him as their
friend[1046].

The next muster was appointed to be held on Wednesday 25 October at
Kilwatling How[1047]. A new actor now comes on the scene—Abbot Carter of
Holm Cultram. The Priory of Carlisle and the Abbey of Holm Cultram were
the only two monasteries in Cumberland wealthy enough to escape the Act
of Suppression. There had been several scandals in connection with Holm
Cultram in recent years, and the abbot seems to have realised from the
first that without a revolution his house was doomed[1048]. Consequently
when the news of the rising reached him he sent orders to all his
tenants to attend the muster at Kilwatling How under pain of
hanging[1049].

There on Wednesday 25 October the gentlemen and commons of the
neighbourhood were sworn, and four clergymen, the parson of Melmerby, Dr
Towneley, the vicar of Sowerby and the vicar of Edenhall, were appointed
Chaplains of Poverty to instruct the commons in the Faith, a lesson
which was much needed, as those who attended the muster announced that
if the other clergymen of the district did not come in they would strike
off the heads of those already in their hands, and set Towneley’s head
on the highest tree of the diocese[1050].

On Wednesday and Thursday a picturesque ceremony took place in Penrith
chapel, when the four captains followed Thompson in procession round the
building with their swords drawn. They then put up their swords and the
vicar said mass, and expounded the Ten Commandments, showing how all the
present troubles had arisen from breaking them. This was called the
captains’ mass. A priest objected that swords should not be drawn in
church, and the ceremony was given up[1051].

The chief problem now before the rebels was the attitude of Carlisle.
This was determined almost by accident. On Monday 16 October the Earl of
Cumberland intended to send his son Henry Lord Clifford to join
Shrewsbury[1052]. Finding that he could not go directly southwards by
land without a considerable risk of falling into the rebels’ hands, Lord
Clifford conceived the ingenious idea of travelling north to his uncle
Sir Thomas Clifford at Berwick and taking ship to Lincolnshire[1053].
The general rising, however, forced him to seek refuge in Carlisle
Castle, and there he lay four days in hiding. Meanwhile on Friday 27
October the citizens of Carlisle sent messengers to the commons of
Penrith under safe conduct. The commons were mustered on Sanderdale
Hill, and the messengers reported that the burgesses of Carlisle would
take no oath, but otherwise would be with them. All the people who lived
in that neighbourhood thought that they would be ruined if Carlisle were
not secured, for the mosstroopers of the Black Quarters, the valleys of
Esk and Line, had already begun to plunder them. By Thompson’s advice
they proclaimed that no one should take provisions into the town, hoping
that it might be reduced by starvation, as Hull had been[1054]. The
threat would have been sufficient for the townspeople, as they had
neither ordnance nor powder and the walls were in ruins, but Lord
Clifford came out of his hiding-place, and said that as his father’s
deputy he would be their captain and jeopardy his life with them. They
were so far encouraged that they promised not to give over the
town[1055], especially as the commons had withdrawn for the moment to
Cockermouth, where they passed the night of Friday 27 October. The Abbot
of Holm Cultram joined them in person at Cockermouth on Saturday 28
October, and the rebels’ council ordered Sir John Lowther, “who was at
Carlisle,” the abbot, Towneley, Richard Blenkhow and Thomas Dalston to
go to Carlisle with orders to the mayor to meet the commons and take the
oath for himself and his brethren on the following Monday at Burford
(Brunfelde) Oak. The priests were very unwilling to go and one Percy
Simpson exclaimed that “they would never be well till they had stricken
off all the priests’ heads, saying they would but deceive them.” The
appointed messengers went no further than Dalston, but they sent “Sir”
William Robin to Carlisle and he brought back word “there was a
proclamation that no man should make any unlawful assembly,” which was
evidently news of the first truce of Doncaster. The abbot and Towneley
told Thompson of this, but he and the other captains believed that it
was only a trick to gain time and mustered next day. Towneley and other
messengers were again sent to Carlisle, where they were shown the
proclamation of the truce, and sent it back to the host at once. They do
not seem to have believed that it would pacify the commons, and
delivered their message to the mayor, who asked for a day’s respite.
When Towneley and the others returned to Burford Oak, however, they
found that the commons had agreed to disperse until Friday 3 November,
when they were to assemble again. Thompson went back to Penrith and took
no further part in the proceedings[1056].

All this time Lord Dacre had been lying quiet at Naworth Castle. By
reason of his feud with the Cliffords and his late trial for treason it
had been hoped that he would join the commons, but his recent experience
had been enough for him, and Sir Ingram Percy called him “first a
traitor to the king and after to the commons” for remaining loyal[1057].
He was in occasional communication with Shrewsbury[1058], and on 30
October he sent to Lord Clifford, offering to come to his aid if the
commons besieged Carlisle, and asking Clifford to come to him if they
besieged Naworth. Clifford willingly agreed[1059]. When the commons
mustered at Burford Oak on Friday 3 November Sir Christopher Dacre came
to them from Carlisle under safe conduct[1060], and with the help of
Towneley and the gentlemen and priests who were with them he persuaded
them to accept the truce and to disperse[1061]. It was agreed that they
should bring their wares to market as before, and that Lord Clifford
should prevent his soldiers from “riding on the commons.”[1062] After
this Lord Dacre went secretly up to London[1063], thinking that he would
be less liable to misrepresentation if he were actually under the King’s
eye.

The movement in Cumberland and Westmorland was essentially a rising of
the poor against the rich. The rebels wanted to abolish rents, tithes
and enclosures[1064]. In spite of the exhortations of the enthusiast,
Robert Thompson, and the Abbot of Holm Cultram, the commons showed no
particular zeal for the Church and treated the clergy with little
respect. In consequence the gentlemen and clergy stood aloof, and the
mass of eager but undisciplined commons were as great an anxiety to the
leaders of the rebellion as they could be to their opponents.

From this brief sketch of the state of the northern counties up to the
first truce of Doncaster two points stand out. In the first place the
discontent was very strong and very widespread. The gentlemen who were
usually equal to keeping order were reduced to a few isolated
fortresses, Chillingham, Scarborough and Skipton; even the large towns,
such as Carlisle, Newcastle and Berwick, were wavering. The progress of
the insurrection may be described in the words which a German historian
uses with regard to the Peasants’ War of 1525: “the peasant revolts
were, in general, less of the nature of campaigns, or even of an
uninterrupted series of minor military operations, than of a slow
process of mobilisation interrupted and accompanied by continual
negociations with the lords and princes—a mobilisation which was
rendered possible by the standing right of assembly and of carrying arms
possessed by the peasants.”[1065] The widespread character of the
rebellion was in its favour, but the second point is against it. In
consequence of the great extent of the district affected it was
inevitable that there should be many conflicting interests, which only
genius could unite in a common cause. In one place the course of the
rising was determined by local feuds, in another by religious
enthusiasm, in another by agricultural grievances.

Though such a mass of discontent was very dangerous to the King, it was
almost equally dangerous to those who were attempting to control and
guide it to a definite object. It will be noticed that there were two
distinct sets of agitators, whose aims were sometimes almost
antagonistic. First, there was the religious movement which usually
centred in some monastery—Hexham, Sawley, Furness or Holm Cultram. Its
motives and object have already been described, and it was the cause
with which the gentlemen sympathised. Second there was the social
movement directed chiefly against raised rents and enclosures. Its
centre seems to have been Richmondshire, and it was this cause which was
most influential in Cumberland and Westmorland. The leaders had adopted
the name of Captain Poverty as a symbol of their intention. The commons,
they meant, were led by Poverty. There was, of course, no one definite
Captain Poverty, though individual leaders might assume the name, as at
Penrith, but wherever that name is used the rising was directed
primarily against the gentlemen, and no particular devotion was shown to
the Church as an institution. It was this second movement which
resembled in many particulars the Peasants’ Revolt in Germany in 1525.
There, as in England, the first demands of the peasants were social, not
religious[1066]. In Germany they soon became combined with a reforming
campaign against the Church, while in England the religious movement was
reactionary, but the ideals of the peasants had something in common with
both tendencies, for while on the one hand they wanted reform of abuses,
on the other their social programme was reactionary, looking back to the
primitive form of the village community[1067]. This may be observed in
the English as well as in the German movement. The leaders of the
religious insurrection in England, Aske and Darcy and the friars, seem
originally to have had little or nothing to do with the social movement,
and though they tried to direct it to their own ends they were rather
alarmed by it.


                          NOTES TO CHAPTER IX

  Note A. The Isle was not Holy Island in Northumberland, as stated in
  the Index of the “Letters and Papers.” It was the name of a country
  house in the parish of Sedgefield, Durham, which was built on an
  island formed by the river Skerne and its tributaries.

  Note B. An attempt was made in 1535 to involve the Abbot of Norton in
  a charge of issuing counterfeit coin[1068].

  Note C. Kendal is now in Westmorland, but in early times it was
  included in Lancashire, and even in Henry VIII’s reign the boundary
  between the two counties was still unsettled[1069].

  Note D. The summary of Nicholas Tempest’s confession which is given in
  the “Letters and Papers,” XII (1), no. 1014 is so brief that it gives
  no idea of the contents of the document. The subsequent references are
  therefore given to the “Yorkshire Archaeological Journal,” vol. XI,
  where the confession is printed in full.




                               CHAPTER X
                       THE MUSTERS AT PONTEFRACT


It was a strange kind of warfare in which the garrison of a surrendered
castle immediately went over to the enemy—joined in their counsels and
became their leaders. When all the gentlemen at Pontefract had taken the
oath Aske “would have yielded up his white rod and name of captain to
the nobility there, which refused, but willed him to continue as captain
because otherwise amongst the nobility there were parte [likely] to be
disdain, if any of them would have taken this office upon them.” A
council was held at once[1070]. Every man was willing and earnest,
excepting the Archbishop and his friend Dr Magnus, who did not attend
the councils[1071]. Darcy and Sir Robert Constable became acknowledged
heads of the Pilgrimage. Constable and Aske had some time before been
“in displeasure” with one another, but, true to their oath, they set
aside all private disputes[1072]. They worked loyally together to muster
and drill the bands of Pilgrims which marched in every hour. At the
councils all the worshipful men “commoned” together “for the setting
forth of the battles and company towards Doncaster, for the preparation
for victuals, scoutwatches and for the orders of the field, and who
should be in the vanward and middleward, and for the answers of the
heralds, and good espials, and search the fords of Don for passage with
the host.” Copies of the oath and Aske’s proclamations were sent out
with the messengers who carried orders and advice to companies on
Pilgrimage in all parts of Yorkshire, in Durham, and in all the north.
Darcy had received trustworthy information from Lancashire, that the
people were about to rise though the Earl of Derby was obstinate in
loyalty[1073]. Aske still had hopes of the young nobleman, and he sent
the servant who brought the news back again, with a letter to the Earl,
and a copy of the oath to be “spread abroad” on his way through the
country[1074].

While the leaders of the Pilgrimage were holding counsel, word was
brought to them that a herald in the King’s coat of arms was riding into
the town. This was Thomas Miller, Lancaster Herald, sent from Scrooby by
the Earl of Shrewsbury to read to the Pilgrims the same proclamation
which had dispersed the men of Lincolnshire. He was a man of parts and
conduct, as became the honourable bearer of the messages of a King. As
he approached Pontefract, he fell in with troops of countrymen on their
way to the musters. They treated him respectfully and listened to his
assurances that the King had never even thought of levying taxes on
burials, christenings, etc. Several hundred, as he said, even promised
him to go home, though it does not appear that they turned back at once.
As he was making his way to the market cross to read his proclamation in
due form, he was stopped and told that the captain of the host, Robert
Aske, had sent for him. He was taken up to the castle, and passed
through the three wards; at the gate of every ward was a porter with a
white rod and “many in harness of very cruel fellows.” He was brought
into a hall full of people and told to wait till the captain’s pleasure
was known. Unappalled by this show of strength and order, the herald
made his way to the high table and boldly began to declare the King’s
will. He was interrupted by a summons to the castle chamber. Here he
found himself before the Archbishop, Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, Sir
Christopher Danby, with other knights and gentlemen. In the midst was
Aske himself, “keeping his port and countenance as though he had been a
great prince with great rigour and like a tyrant,” said Lancaster
afterwards, shocked at such assurance in a traitor. Not deigning to
address a mere gentleman when lords spiritual and temporal were present,
the herald, with due regard for precedence, first offered to deliver his
message to the Archbishop and then to Darcy. Both bade him give it to
the captain, who “with an inestimable proud countenance, stretched
himself and took a hearing of my tale.” On understanding his mission the
captain asked to see the proclamation. The herald drew it from his purse
and Aske “read it openly without reverence to any person[1075], and
said ... he would of his own wit give me the answer. He, standing up in
the highest place of the chamber, taking the high estate upon him, said:
Herald, as a messenger you are welcome to me and all my company,
intending as I do; and as for this proclamation sent from the lords,
from whence ye come, it shall not be read at the Market Cross nor in no
place amongst my people, which be all under my guiding, nor for fear of
loss of lands, life or goods, nor for the power which is against us doth
not enter into our hearts with fear; but are all of one accord with the
points of our articles, clearly intending to see a reformation or else
to die in those causes.” Miller asked what the articles might be; the
captain answered that they were going “to London, upon pilgrimage to the
King’s Highness” to petition him for “full restitution of Christ’s
Church of all wrongs done to it” and the putting down of vile blood from
the Council. At Miller’s request, Aske gave him a copy of the oath and
offered to sign it. The herald “prayed him to put his hand to the said
bill and so he did, and with a proud voice said: This is mine act who so
ever says to the contrary.” The herald again begged that he might read
the proclamation to the commons, and even fell on his knees in his
anxiety to do his errand truly. But Aske was determined. “He clearly
answered me that of my life I should not, for he would have nothing put
in his people’s heads that should sound contrary to his intent.” He
dared not let Lancaster proclaim openly that the Lincolnshire Rebellion
was over. It was already rumoured in the Pilgrims’ host, and roused such
fury among the commons that Aske doubted whether he could save the
herald’s life if he declared the news to be true[1076]. The Pilgrimage
must not be stained with the murder of a messenger. Moreover the
proclamation itself was unsatisfactory, containing no offer of pardon,
nor as much as demanding the Pilgrims’ reasons for rising in arms. These
the King persisted in assuming that he knew—they were the false rumours
of new taxes[1077]. Indeed the proclamation, though couched in the most
sonorous English, contained so little to the point that it was no wonder
a serious leader of the Pilgrimage should treat it with scorn.

Miller naturally thought that had he been allowed to accomplish his
mission the effect would have been great. All the ploughmen and farm
hands, he believed, “would have gone home, ... for they say that they be
weary of that life they lead, and if (any) say to the contrary of the
captain’s will he shall die.” He must have heard the commons grumbling
at the strict orders against spoils.

Aske ended the interview by promising Lancaster perfect safety whenever
he brought messages in the King’s coat, and “if my Lord Shrewsbury or
other lords of the King’s army would come and speak with him, they
should have of him their safe conduct to come safe and go safe. And also
said: Herald, commend me to the lords from whence you come, and say to
them, it were meet they were with me, for it is for all their wealths I
do.... Then he commanded Lord Darcy to give me two crowns of five
shillings to reward whether I would or no, then took me by the arm and
brought me forth of the castle and there made a proclamation that I
should go safe and come safe wearing the King’s coat, on pain of death;
and so took his leave of me and returned into the castle, in high honour
of the people as a traitor may. And I missed my horse, and I called to
him again for to have my horse, and then he made a proclamation that
whoso held my horse and brought him not again immediately, bade kill him
without mercy. And then both my horse was delivered unto me; and then he
commanded that twenty or forty men should bring me out of the town,
where I should least see his people.”[1078]

On this same Saturday 21 October 1536, Sir Thomas Percy arrived at
Pontefract at the head of nearly ten thousand men from the north-east.
To describe the raising of this company we must go back a week or more.
Sir Thomas was at Seamer in the North Riding, his mother’s house, when
the first news of trouble in Lincolnshire came. Three days later a
servant arrived from Wressell Castle, bringing venison for the Dowager
Countess from the Earl. He brought word that Aske had raised the commons
of Howdenshire, and the tenants of Wressell cried before the Earl’s
gates “Thousands for a Percy!” The country round was much disturbed, and
Sir Thomas grew anxious to return home to Prudhoe Castle in Tynedale
where his wife and children were. It must have been about 14 or 15
October that he attempted to go north secretly, disguised in one of his
servant’s coats, leading his own mail horse, and accompanied only by his
page and a couple of men. They presently fell in with two rebel leaders.
One of them “a man with a red face” was William Percehay of Ryton; he
seems to have recognised Sir Thomas or at least to have suspected who he
was. Seeing the Percy livery he asked where Sir Thomas might be. They
replied he was at Seamer. Percehay of Ryton told them the commons had
mustered at Malton and were determined to have Sir Thomas for their
captain. They had set watch to take him, and if he did not join them by
noon they would “leave my lady his mother never a penny or pennyworth of
goods.” Sir Thomas went back to Seamer and told the old Countess that he
could not make his way home “whereupon she wept and sore lamented.”
About two o’clock in the afternoon a large company of commons led by
several gentlemen came to summon him to join the Pilgrimage. The
captains entered the house without any resistance being offered and Sir
Thomas “came forth to them to the great chamber.” They told him they
were assembled for the weal of all; and Lord Latimer, Lord Neville,
Danby, Bowes and many more had already joined them. Sir Thomas willingly
took the Pilgrims’ oath and agreed to attend the muster next day “at the
Wold beyond Spittel.” He went with a dozen or more followers, but
“within a while” four or five thousand commons assembled there. Next day
they spoiled the house of Mr Chamley, who had refused to come in, crying
“Strike off his head,” when Sir Thomas protested. He returned that night
to Seamer to comfort his mother and assure her of his safety, staying
there two nights before leaving for a large muster at Malton. From there
he sent for Sir Nicholas Fairfax and together they took command of about
ten thousand men; they received orders from Aske to march to York, but
in a day or two they were countermanded to the siege of Hull, and, when
news came that Hull had surrendered, to Pontefract[1079].

They passed through York on the 20th and their entry was attended with
some pomp. Sir Oswald Wolsthrope had been raising the people west of the
city in the triangle of country between the rivers Ouse, Nidd and Wharf,
holding musters at Bilborough and Acomb. He joined forces with Percy and
made the Abbot of St Mary’s, much against his will, walk at the head of
the troops as they marched through York carrying his finest cross; “at
the town’s end” Sir Thomas allowed the abbot to steal away “leaving his
cross behind him.” He supposed “Sir Oswald had not been pleased with the
abbot” from whom they had all been getting money[1080]. Sir Thomas Percy
himself was especially splendid. He had sent for “a great trotting bay
gelding” from the sub-prior of Watton, who was under obligations to his
family[1081]; and he had bought in the city (not at his own cost, but at
that of the kindly Treasurer, Colins) four pounds worth of velvet[1082].
“Gorgeously he rode through the King’s highness’ city of York in
complete harness with feathers trimmed as well as he might deck himself
at that time.”[1083] His servants must have worn the Percy livery,
scarlet and black, with the silver crescent on the breast. He must have
looked a worthy son of the Magnificent Earl, and no wonder the commons
greeted him joyfully. They “showed such affection towards him as they
showed towards none other,” and called him “Lord Percy,”—for was he not
“the best of the Percys that were left next to my lord of
Northumberland?” The King could rob him of his inheritance, never of his
blood. But Sir Thomas was honourably loyal to his brother. “He lighted
off his horse and took off his cap and desired them that they would not
so say, for ... the same would turn him but to displeasure.”[1084]

At Sir George Lawson’s house Sir Thomas, Sir Nicholas Fairfax, Sir
Oswald Wolsthrope and the rest of his party met George Lumley, Lord
Lumley’s heir, who had ridden in from Thwing with his tenants. They
discussed the attitude of the religious from whom Percy had received
help in money, provisions and men. He especially praised the Prior of
Bridlington who had sent two brethren “the tallest men that he
saw.”[1085] The prior was a good friend to the Pilgrims though he had
troubles of his own. He was threatened by the commons recruiting for
Percy, but they were satisfied when, besides the two brethren, eleven
horsed tenants of his joined them. Later Aske gave him “a writing for
the assurance of his goods” and in return he contributed twenty nobles
to the Pilgrimage treasury. In spite of his paper he gave £4 to the men
of Holderness “not to drive away his cattle there.”[1086] But this last
may have been a voluntary gift, in spite of the saving clause. The
religious were being heavily taxed. Sir Nicholas Fairfax said that as it
was a spiritual matter “he thought meet that the priors and abbots and
other men of the Church should ... go forth in their own person.” He
went himself to the unfortunate Abbot of St Mary, who had already done
his best to satisfy Percy and Wolsthrope. Sir Thomas sent Lumley on a
round of religious houses, to St Saviour’s of Newburgh, Byland, Rievaux,
Whitby, Malton and Kirkham, while John Lambeth, his servant, went to
Mountgrace, Bridlington, and Guisborough: “to move the abbots or priors
and two monks of every of those houses with the best cross to come
forwards in their best array.” Byland, Newburgh and Whitby contributed
forty shillings each, but all had given Percy help before. The abbot of
Rievaux and the prior of Guisborough were ready to come in person, but
Aske countermanded Percy’s orders, bidding Lumley obtain such
“benevolence” as he could, but let the religious themselves tarry at
home[1087]. The money which the Pilgrims collected would be spent by the
captains on food and lodging for their men. Each of the commons “found”
by his township was given twenty shillings to begin with: the ordinary
rate of pay for soldiers was eight pence a day, so this would last at
least a month and with presents, spoils, etc. might be made to go
further, as the Pilgrims were on a kind of volunteer service. The
townships had taxed themselves to raise this money. Gentlemen went at
their own cost.

After Lancaster Herald had left Pontefract, Aske and Sir Robert
Constable held musters on St Thomas’ hill near Pontefract where they
“tried out the men.” “No man there but was willing to do his best and
prepare for battle.”[1088] News came that the Earl of Shrewsbury had
mustered his army on Blythe Law. As the lords and captains sat at supper
in the castle hall that night, a messenger came in with a letter for
Darcy. He read it through and dropped it on the board with a sigh[1089].
Aske, who was sitting opposite, reached across for the paper, which was
to this purpose: “Son Thomas, the Earl of Shrewsbury entendeth to take
you sleeper.” It was unsigned. The captain assured Darcy that there was
“scorage (scouts) enough out to give him warning.” Darcy advised that
Ferrybridge (now Wentbridge) should be watched for the night; and Aske
sent a company accordingly. Who was the spy in Shrewsbury’s ranks? If
Darcy ever revealed his name it was to Aske alone; and Aske never
betrayed him. The question was more interesting to Henry than to us, but
there can be no doubt that a considerable party in the royal army
secretly favoured the Pilgrims and were ready to desert if the latter
gained a victory.

Blythe, where Shrewsbury mustered, is close to Scrooby in
Nottinghamshire about twelve miles south of Doncaster and at least
twenty-five, as the crow flies, from Pontefract. There was not,
therefore, any immediate danger of surprise. Ferrybridge is on the Aire,
hardly two miles north of Pontefract on the direct road from York—an
essential joint in the Great North Road. But at that time this important
passage was called Ferrybridges, and Wentbridge, also on the main road,
but two miles south of Pontefract, was known as Ferrybridge[1090]. This
naturally causes some confusion on a first reading of the documents
concerned. It was Wentbridge that Darcy advised Aske to hold in case of
Shrewsbury’s sudden advance. The Went is a far smaller stream than the
Aire, but when the waters were swollen it would probably be
impracticable for an army to ford it. Ferrybridge on the Aire was also
guarded; but for different reasons. It was in the rear of the Pilgrims’
host and out of reach of attack. Nevertheless no one was allowed to
cross northwards without a passport from Aske: this served the double
purpose of checking spies or suspicious letters and preventing the
retreat of “those who were fainthearted.”[1091] An instance of the
keeping of Ferrybridge is given by the adventures of Harry Sais. He was
a servant of Christopher Askew, the gentleman of the King’s Chamber whom
Cromwell had sent to Lincolnshire[1092]. He came north early in October
to bring home three of his master’s horses which were “with one Mr
Knevet at grass.” By the time he reached his destination the country was
up, and he dared not take the horses lest they should be stolen. He set
out southwards without them, accompanied by a gentlewoman, Mrs Beckwith,
perhaps one of Leonard Beckwith’s family. When they came to Ferrybridge
they were stopped by the guards and told to swear to be true to God and
the King; Sais said he was willing. “And not to us?” asked another. “If
ye be true to the King, or else I would be loath to swear.” He was told:
“If ye do not swear thus, to be true to God and to the King and to the
commons, thou shalt lose thy head.” So he took the oath “upon a little
book that one of them brought forth of his sleeve.” He was taken to
Pontefract during the siege and saw the rebel host, which he thought was
about ten thousand, the most part horsed but without much harness. When
the castle was taken it was said the Pilgrims would go forward to
London. He was allowed to go southwards and at Wentbridge he found the
lady waiting; they continued their journey together and passed through
Shrewsbury’s host at Doncaster[1093].

On Sunday 22 October at nine o’clock in the morning William Stapleton
brought to Pontefract the host of Beverley which had been besieging
Hull. They had set out for York on Saturday morning, leaving a garrison
in Hull. Stapleton, Rudston and Sir Ralph Ellerker rode in advance, and
presently met a post from Aske with a letter announcing the surrender of
Pontefract Castle and the capture of the Earl of Northumberland by a
party of the commons. At York they heard the equally welcome news that
Sir Thomas Percy “had gone towards Pontefract with a goodly band the
same day.”[1094] Sir Ralph, two of the Rudstons and young Robert Aske
dined at Sir George Lawson’s where they heartily abused Cromwell, Sir
Ralph saying that he “was a traitor and he would prove it if the King
would hear him.”[1095]

After passing through York the companies parted, no doubt for
convenience in foraging. Sir Ralph and Rudston spent the night at
Shirburn, while the Stapletons rode home to Wighill, “and lodged their
folk a mile off at Tadcaster.” The night was full of flying rumours
carried from company to company by posts spurring through the muddy
lanes. One cried in passing that every man must go forward for Doncaster
Bridge was down; another came to Wighill from his master Sir James
Strangways, who lay at Wetherby with Lord Latimer, Lord Neville and
their northern host. About midnight, William and his nephew were roused
from their beds by a messenger from Shirburn, sent on by Ellerker with
orders for them to be at Pontefract by nine o’clock in the morning, and
there they arrived at the appointed hour on Sunday 22 October[1096].

Besides bands from different parts of the shire, all the country round
Pontefract was taking up arms. As soon as news of the surrender of
Pontefract Castle came to Wakefield no one there was in any doubt as to
which side he would take. Thomas Grice, Darcy’s steward, who put his
master first and his religion second, was overjoyed to find duty and
inclination point the same path. At Halifax the Tempests and their
faction declared for the Pilgrimage; it immediately appeared that Sir
Henry Saville was loyal. The old feud divided the district into two
violent parties. At first both sides hoped to turn the insurrection to
good account against their enemies. John Lacy, the bailiff of Halifax
under Sir Richard Tempest whose son-in-law he was, declared for the
Pilgrims “before any of those parts went to Aske.” He ordered the men of
the town to harness themselves and to take the church cross and carry it
before them into Lancashire where they would raise the commons; and this
he commanded in the name of Sir Richard Tempest. Henry Farrore, a
partisan of Saville’s, refused to go and the expedition seems to have
been given up. Lacy had made a political rhyme “touching the King very
sore.” The only verse preserved does not scan very well: “that as for
the King a nappyll and a fair wench to dally with all would please him
very well.” This embodies the popular conception of Henry at that time.
The people believed him a bluff jolly King Hal, who cared not who ruled
his kingdom as long as he had his pleasures. The rhyme was repeated to
the vicar, Holdsworth, by a yeoman named Middleton, and they went
together to Sir Henry Saville, who was sick in bed, and told him of the
matter. But Middleton was somewhat alarmed by the serious way it was
taken and said his wife had reminded him that the rhyme was not about
the King but about the “Bishop of Canterbury.” Holdsworth sent a servant
to “make good cheer” with Middleton and his wife and “spy a time” to get
to the bottom of the matter. He asked the woman if the rhyme were not
about the Bishop. “Nay, Marry!” said she, “it was made against the King
and my lord Privy Seal.” Her husband contradicted her, but she answered
“Marry! it is so, for it was so indeed against the King and my lord
Privy Seal, by God! without fail.” In this way the vicar and Saville
collected accusations against their enemies[1097].

Aske’s advance and the general success of the movement soon changed the
face of things. Sir Henry Saville, in spite of his sickness, found it
advisable to fly to Shrewsbury. Dr Holdsworth made his way to London, in
the happy belief that his gold was safely hidden[1098] and the rebels
would find in his vicarage only such goods as he did not mind losing.
The Lacys instantly seized his house and seem to have made it their
headquarters; they took all the locks off the doors, and divided
everything they could get amongst themselves. Thomas Lacy was given the
firewood that was stored under the stairs; he carried it off, and seeing
the earth below he remembered it was said that the vicar hid money in
the ground. “He took a piked staff and struck into the ground and at the
first stroke hit the pot.” He told nobody of his find but took the money
home in his sleeve, presumably by little and little. He stored it “in a
pepper poke of canvas which would hold a pound of pepper, but the gold
did not fill it by two fingers’ breadth.” He used some of it for himself
though he never counted the whole amount[1099].

Meanwhile most of the gentlemen of the countryside joined the
insurgents. Sir William Fairfax, the stingy farmer of Ferriby Priory was
an exception. As he was riding through the town of Wakefield about 22
October the commons demanded that he should take the oath. They received
no favourable answer, the knight putting spurs to his horse and riding
for home. Immediately the whole town assembled in arms, six hundred men
and more, led by Thomas Grice who was proclaimed their captain, a canon
of York, and the bailiff. They pursued the fugitive, who in the meantime
had reached Millthrop Hall and gone to bed. A party of commons rushed to
his room, tore him out of bed “and him evil entreated to the great fear
and danger of his life.” They haled him before Thomas Grice, “then
sitting on horseback in the street,” and he was compelled to swear
instantly; Grice gave him into the charge of the bailiff of Wakefield
and a guard of commons, commanding them to carry him to Aske. He was “in
most cruel manner conveyed ... to the said town of Wakefield as though
he had been a felon”; there they kept him all night, and at eight next
morning brought him before Captain Grice again. A guard of two hundred
men or more was told off to take him to Pontefract Castle. At length he
was carried before Aske, who was holding a great muster on St Thomas’
Hill, and “delivered to the said traitor Aske and other detestable
villains of his company as a prisoner taken by the said Grice.”[1100] As
usual, it is here at the most interesting place that Sir William’s
complaint ends. Once out of the hands of his private enemies he seems to
have submitted to fate and gone quietly forward with the Pilgrims[1101].

Next came in the band of the Bishopric of Durham, five thousand strong,
under the leadership of Lords Latimer, Lumley and Neville Westmorland’s
son and heir, Sir Robert Bowes of Barnard Castle and his sons, Sir John
and Sir William Bulmer[1102]. Part of Richmondshire was with them, and
the rest of it, with Wensleydale, Craven, and Ripon, was besieging
Skipton Castle under the Nortons and others. Orders had been despatched
for this second host to attend the Pontefract musters, and they were
about to obey, bringing Cumberland and Lord Scrope if they could catch
them[1103]. The Haliewer folk brought with them the famous banner of St
Cuthbert[1104], which was preserved in the monastery of Durham and only
brought forth on high feast days and in time of war. It was of white and
crimson velvet, richly embroidered in gold and silk, with St Cuthbert’s
cross in the midst. Often as it had been borne in the field against the
Scots it was “never carried or showed at any battle, but, by the
especial grace of God Almighty, and the mediation of holy St Cuthbert,
it brought home the victory.”[1105] The Bishopric host wore badges
embroidered with a black cross and with the insignia of the Five Wounds
of Christ[1106], a wounded Heart in the centre, from which drops of
blood are falling into a Chalice, two pierced Hands above, and two
pierced Feet below. They were the first to use this device as a badge;
it was blazoned on the Pilgrims’ banner[1107].

When they marched into Pontefract Lord Darcy was at dinner[1108],—a meal
which began at eleven and commonly lasted two hours, though in “busy
times” it must often have been cut short. Aske brought in the lords and
gentlemen of the county Palatine and presented them to Darcy in the
castle chamber. The two chiefs called a select number aside into a deep
window. The three lords, Sir Robert Constable, Sir Thomas Percy, Sir
Ralph Ellerker, Rudston, Roger Lassells, Robert Bowes, Sir John Dawnye,
Sir William Fairfax, Sir Oswald Wolsthrope, Sir Robert Neville, Robert
Challoner, Thomas Grice and William Babthorpe were among the
councillors[1109]. It must have been a very large window.

Darcy gave them the latest news, that Shrewsbury, supported by Norfolk,
had reached Doncaster: it was determined to advance to the Don next day
and oppose his crossing[1110]. The formation of the army was then
discussed. The Bishopric men as the bearers of St Cuthbert’s sacred
banner[1111] must lead the vanguard in battle, and Darcy advised that
they should lie that night at Wentbridge where they might guard against
a night attack while at the same time they would be a couple of miles on
their way to Doncaster. But Robert Bowes objected to this arrangement;
his men and horses were in no fit state to go further that night.
Finally it was agreed that Sir Thomas Percy should command the vanguard,
until the host had re-mustered on the banks of the Don. He was to have
under him Sir Ralph Ellerker, Sir William Constable, Rudston and the
Stapletons with the whole of the East Riding, which having come in early
had rested through the day. The rest of the host was to follow next
day—the middle ward composed of the West Riding under Darcy and Sir
Richard Tempest, the rear ward of the Bishopric with their own leaders
and Aske[1112].

Darcy on seeing the badge of the Five Wounds worn by the Bishopric
gentlemen, was reminded that the same device had been used on his
Spanish Expedition against the Moors[1113]. Somewhere in the castle a
store of the badges was found, and promptly distributed among the
Pilgrims. Darcy himself gave one to Aske[1114] and through the whole
host it was gladly worn as the true symbol of their pilgrimage for the
Faith. Why Darcy had kept these old badges so long, and how there
chanced to be so many; whether they were really old, and if not, who had
made them, were questions which afterwards excited Henry’s curiosity.
But, if they were ever answered, the answers are lost.

Proclamation was made to the host “for every man of the east parts to
void the town on pain of death, and to draw to Wentbridge to wait upon”
Sir Thomas Percy. Stapleton and the other captains mustered the men and
marched them down to the Went, where they passed the night[1115].

To summarise the position of the Pilgrims—on the night of Sunday 22
October they had advanced as far as Wentbridge, which was occupied by a
strong force. The main body lay at Pontefract while a host of unknown
strength was expected from Mashamshire and the Dales, but had not yet
arrived. They had captured Hull, York, Pontefract, Barnard Castle,
Durham and Lancaster, but still had in their rear the loyal towns of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Berwick and Carlisle (which, however, was not able
to offer much resistance), and also some isolated castles, Skipton,
Scarborough, Chillingham and Norham. At this point the fortunes of the
Pilgrims may be left for a time, in order to consider the forces with
which the King was preparing to oppose them.


                           NOTES TO CHAPTER X

  Note A. The proper “reverence” on receiving a letter from the King was
  to take off the hat, kneel down, and kiss the seal.

  Note B. It is not clear which of two extant proclamations to the
  rebels Lancaster Herald had with him on this occasion. The one
  indicated in the “Letters and Papers” does contain an offer of pardon,
  if the rebels will disperse and give up ten leaders. The other is very
  similar but contains no promise of pardon, so this was probably the
  one used[1116].

  Note C. An abstract of Lancaster Herald’s account of his mission is
  given in L. and P. XI, 826, but the account is printed in full in
  “State Papers,” I, p. 485; in a Newcastle-upon-Tyne Tract by
  Longstaff, “A Leaf from the Pilgrimage of Grace”; and in
  “Archaeologia,” XVI, p. 331; Froude also makes considerable quotations
  from it. Lancaster Herald represents himself as acting boldly and with
  dignity, and Aske with considerably more dignity than the Herald
  thought became a captain of rebels. In marked contrast with this
  account is Archbishop Lee’s version of the same affair. According to
  the Archbishop “Robert Aske so blustered and spake so terrible words
  that the poor man fell down upon his knees for fear and said he was
  but a messanger.” Lee raised him, saying, “it beseemed not that coat
  armour to kneel before any man there.” This is hard to reconcile with
  the earlier account. The Archbishop must have been good-naturedly
  trying to befriend Miller, who was afterwards accused of shaming the
  King’s coat by kneeling to a traitor. At the same time Lee’s little
  perversion enabled him to exhibit himself in a nobly loyal attitude.
  In Lee’s narrative Aske always appears as a ferocious captain of
  banditti, but this portrait is not confirmed by the other evidence.

  Note D. For a full discussion of this symbol see “The Western
  Rebellion of 1549” by Frances Rose-Troup, Append. A, and “Notes and
  Queries,” 11th ser., VIII, 107, 176, 217, 236, 258. A badge, said to
  be that worn by Sir Robert Constable during the Pilgrimage, is
  preserved at Everingham, Yorks. An excellent photograph of this badge
  forms the frontispiece of “The Western Rebellion of 1549”; there is
  another in “The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal,” pt. LXXXI, and a
  sketch in “The Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society,”
  vi, 47.

  Antonio Guaras, a Spaniard who lived in England under Edward VI and
  wrote a chronicle of Henry VIII’s reign, says that the Pilgrims wore
  as their badge “The Five Plagues of Egypt”! His mistake arose from the
  similarity between the Spanish phrases “cinco plagas de Egipto,” the
  five plagues of Egypt, and “cinco llagas de Cristo,” the Five Wounds
  of Christ[1117]. But although this is some excuse, he might have known
  that the Plagues of Egypt were not five but twelve.




                               CHAPTER XI
                   THE FIRST APPOINTMENT AT DONCASTER


The Duke of Norfolk was the most experienced general whose services were
available to Henry at this crisis, but the King was very reluctant to
trust him, as he was suspected of sympathy with the rebels. At the first
alarm Henry had sent for Norfolk, but it has already been shown how he
was superseded at the last moment by Suffolk[1118]. When the danger
again became pressing, however, Henry was obliged to face the risk of
employing him.

In order to understand how this came about, it is necessary to go back
to 9 October, when Norfolk was at Woolpit, mustering the men of Norfolk
and Suffolk. He was anxiously awaiting orders to go northward, and wrote
to Henry that he was willing to serve under the Duke of Suffolk. He
expected to have 2500 men under him in the course of a few days. As to
artillery, “I have my own five fawcons and twenty brass hakbushes, but
want gunners.” He was badly in need of bows and arrows, and begged that
they might be sent at once[1119]. Three hours after his letter was
despatched he received orders to ride to the King at Windsor, and he set
out the same night by moonlight[1120]. He had hardly reached Colchester
next morning, after a fifty mile ride, when despatches arrived ordering
him to be at Ampthill on 16 October with the troops which he had just
mustered. He was overjoyed at being ordered to the front at last, but in
spite of his professed willingness to serve under Suffolk he wrote to
Cromwell asking that his right as Marshal of England to command the
vanguard, should be recognised. For the rest he was all obedience and
loyalty; he would not fail; he himself would be at Ampthill, as such was
the King’s pleasure[1121]. But the troops would be obliged to go round
by Cambridge and Huntingdon. Ampthill was thirty miles south of
Huntingdon, and Norfolk knew that it was impossible for them to be there
on the appointed day[1122], but he was determined not to risk Henry’s
displeasure, and said nothing of his difficulties to the King. He sent
an account of his precautions for the quiet of the country, where he
left his son Thomas with 300 men, and begged that his eldest son the
Earl of Surrey might go with him[1123]. The beautiful and accomplished
Surrey seems to have been the only living creature whom the cold-blooded
old warrior really loved.

On Thursday 12 October the Duke of Norfolk was at home at Kenninghall,
and wrote to Cromwell that though the men could not be at Ampthill on
the 17th, he hoped to have them as far as Cambridge. From Cambridge to
Huntingdon was only twelve miles and “it were pity with ill-horsed men”
to go back thirty miles to Ampthill. If the King, whom he still expected
in person, would consent, Norfolk would meet him at Huntingdon on the
18th “with a company meet to be a pretty wing to a battle.” In spite of
his boast of their efficiency, Norfolk did not dare to ride to the King
until his men were well on their way, and if Surrey did not go with them
they were likely to dwindle in numbers[1124].

Norfolk was rather aggrieved that the King had commanded fewer gentlemen
to join his company than had gone with Suffolk[1125]. The reason of this
was that when the King received good news from Lincolnshire, he believed
that the rebellion was over[1126], and orders were actually sent out on
the 12th and 15th to countermand the Ampthill musters[1127]. In spite of
Norfolk’s complaint, the knights and abbots who had received the King’s
orders to join Norfolk were able to provide plenty of men, though they
lacked means to equip them. “If I had harness and time to carry footmen
I could bring three times as many,” Norfolk declared, and every letter
ends with an urgent request for “at least 400 bows and 500 sheaves of
arrows. This were better than gold or silver, for, for money, I cannot
get bows nor arrows.”[1128] He hoped these stores would be at Cambridge
when his men arrived there[1129].

On Sunday 15 October Norfolk was with the King at Windsor[1130]. On the
same day, Henry sent long instructions to Shrewsbury and Suffolk about
the arrangements to be made in Lincolnshire[1131]. If the rebellion in
Holderness was already pacified, they were to work together; if not,
Suffolk must advance to Lincoln, while Shrewsbury marched against the
Yorkshire insurgents. The King seems to have had no doubt that his force
would be large enough to settle their business[1132].

When Norfolk arrived at Windsor, he found that the Ampthill musters had
been countermanded, and that the King had given up all intention of
going north. There seemed nothing for him to do but to arrange for the
laying of posts[1133]. But on leaving Windsor that night he met a
messenger on the road with letters from Lord Darcy[1134]. These were the
letters dated from Pontefract on the 13th, and they proved so alarming
that Norfolk returned to Windsor[1135].

At last the King realised that the Yorkshire rebellion was not a mere
demonstration of sympathy with Lincolnshire, but an entirely distinct
and far more serious protest against his policy. He instantly changed
his plans. If the worst were true, Norfolk must be given a joint
commission with Shrewsbury to proceed against the rebels, and must take
command of the troops at Ampthill before they dispersed. The Marquis of
Exeter, who was also mustering men, was to be his second in
command[1136]. A postscript was added to Shrewsbury’s instructions to
inform him of this arrangement, and to direct him to suppress the
Yorkshire rising at once, if he was strong enough,—if not, to wait for
Norfolk, who would join him with 5000 men[1137].

The King, who had been reassured for a moment by the harmless end of the
Lincolnshire rising, was now really alarmed by the news from
Yorkshire[1138]. On 17 October Leonard Beckwith reached Windsor bringing
from York letters from the lord mayor and Sir George Lawson in which
they begged for protection against the rebels[1139]. Next day another
messenger arrived with letters from Darcy describing the serious state
of affairs. This man also carried by word of mouth a lengthy account of
the rebels and the rumours which circulated among them[1140]. Whether
because he repeated only what he knew would please the King, or because
anything which did not suit the royal mind was omitted in writing down
his report, these “bruits” contain no word of the rebels’ real demands,
but give as their only grievances the imaginary taxes on burials and
christenings, white bread and white meat, and so forth[1141].

The King “had no great trust in Darcy.” He was hard put to it to find
money for the troops under Shrewsbury, Suffolk, and Norfolk, and he
never seems even to have contemplated sending any money and stores to
Pontefract. Cromwell, who was in London, received orders from Windsor
“to make shift to the utmost” to get money, and if he could not raise
enough, to coin the King’s plate in the Jewel House[1142].

On 22 October it was known in London that Hull had surrendered, and it
was feared that many of the Lincolnshire captains would fly thither. The
King sent orders to Cromwell to “taste the fat priests thereabouts;” Dr
Chamber had already presented the King with 200 marks, and Dr Lupton had
given £200[1143].

The arrival of any news from the north was watched for with lynx eyes,
less because it was of so much interest to the government than because
the King lived in constant fear that the rebellion would spread
southward. For instance, when Harry Sais reached London safely without
the horses, he related his adventures to his master, Christopher
Askew[1144]. Askew had some interest in the little Benedictine nunnery
at Clementhorpe, York, which had lately been dissolved. The abbess had
promised him £30 to be her suitor to the Queen, and had offered to
present 300 marks to the Queen herself, if the house might stand. But it
had been dissolved in spite of the abbess’ efforts, and there the matter
had ended for the time. When the Pilgrims restored the scattered
sisterhood, the abbess sent word to Askew by Sais that she was again in
a position to bribe the Queen, and that if she could by this means
legalise her position, her brother-in-law, one of the Ellerkers, would
convey the money through the disturbed country. Askew informed the
Queen’s chancellor of this renewed offer, and through him it came to
Cromwell’s ears. On 26 October Askew and Sais were examined before the
Council. By this time it was “in every man’s mouth that Pontefract
Castle was given over.”[1145]

Meanwhile Norfolk set out from Windsor for Ampthill on Monday 16
October, authorised to muster 5000 men[1146]. At Amersham he received a
letter from his son Surrey, who had reached Cambridge with his forces on
Sunday night. About 9 o’clock letters had arrived at Cambridge for the
Duke, which Surrey had been instructed to open. They proved to be from
Cromwell and the Privy Council, announcing that Lincolnshire was quiet
again, and that the advance of the troops was therefore to be delayed
till further orders were received. Surrey dared not make this news
public, lest the men should disperse without waiting for definite
orders. After consulting only two friends, he decided to hold musters at
Cambridge next day, and wrote to his father for advice. Many of the
gentlemen in their zeal had sent two or three times as many men as they
had been commanded to provide, and Surrey was obliged to send for 1500
extra coats. These “liveries” may have been embroidered with the famous
white lion of the Howards, but more probably they were the ordinary
English uniform of that day, white tunics with St George’s red cross on
the back and breast. Food was so dear that the soldiers could not make
3_s._ 4_d._ keep them for two days, although this was an exceptionally
high wage, as 8_d._ a day was usual in most parts of the country. In
spite of these drawbacks, Surrey boasted that the company was “judged by
those here who have seen many musters the finest ever raised on such
short warrant.”[1147]

Many more men had been collected than the 5000 that Norfolk was
authorised to muster, for Exeter had at least 2000 and 1000 more were
coming from Gloucestershire. All Norfolk’s soldierly instincts protested
against dismissing men while the extent of the rising was still so
uncertain. He wrote to Henry to ask that he might be allowed to keep at
least 6000; even then nearly 2000 would have to be sent home[1148]. But
as no orders came to the contrary, the 2000 were dismissed when Norfolk
reached Ampthill[1149].

On Tuesday 17 October Suffolk with Fitzwilliam, Russell and the rest of
the royal troops entered Lincoln, and by securing the capital placed
themselves in a position to keep the county in subjection[1150]. The
Humber and the lower reaches of the Trent were guarded against the
Pilgrims’ crossing[1151].

On the same day Shrewsbury was at Newark with 7000 men[1152]. He had
heard from Darcy that the rebels were 40,000 strong. In spite of this he
was anxious to advance. He had just received the King’s commission to
act as his lieutenant in Yorkshire in conjunction with Norfolk[1153],
and he wrote to the Duke that if the rebels were really too strong to be
attacked, he would “keep them in play” until Norfolk could bring up his
5000 men to Doncaster, which Shrewsbury begged him to do as quickly as
possible[1154].

On Wednesday 18 October Shrewsbury sent Lord Hussey, who had brought him
200 horsemen, to the King[1155]. About midnight, when lying at
Southwell, the Earl received news that Pontefract Castle was besieged
and the Earl of Northumberland taken, and above all that the rebels were
before him at Doncaster, which had risen at their instigation. He sent
at once to Suffolk for as many horsemen as could be spared, under the
command of Fitzwilliam or Brian[1156].

Norfolk and Exeter received Shrewsbury’s letter of the 17th at 6 o’clock
in the evening of Wednesday 18 October. They were together at Ampthill
in no very enviable position. The 2000 men mustered there were only
waiting for their wages before disbanding. Norfolk’s own men were still
at Cambridge, Exeter’s at Buckingham, and the Gloucestershire gentlemen
at Stony Stratford, all obediently awaiting further orders, according to
their last instructions. Although there was no great difficulty in
ordering them to set out for Doncaster, uniting at various points on the
way, it would take them over a week to get there. They could not advance
more than 20 miles a day, as they were badly horsed and the roads were
deep in autumn mud. It was impossible to preserve order and discipline
on the march unless wages were regularly paid, but money was scarce and
went fast. The men could not feed their horses and themselves for 8_d._
a day, and the £10,000 which had been sent to the Duke was not enough to
pay off the disbanded company and also to provide for those going
northward. Norfolk was afraid to set out without money to last as far as
Doncaster, as an unpaid army might dissolve in the face of the rebels,
or advance only as a disorderly rabble[1157]. Shrewsbury had sent for
£20,000, and the King, expecting Norfolk and Exeter to reach him much
sooner than was practicable, wrote that they should receive their next
wages from Gostwick in Shrewsbury’s camp. As to the amount per day, the
King flatly refused to raise it.

The generals received this despatch early on Thursday 19 October. They
could not afford to delay any longer, but money must be obtained at
once. In their answer to the King they explained that they could not be
with Shrewsbury for a week or more. Let the King only lend them £1000
each and send it to Stamford on Saturday 21 October; they would repay
him at the end of the campaign. As it was the King’s pleasure that no
higher wages should be paid, the men should have only the ordinary
amount from the government. But they could not live on 8_d._ a day; they
were to be divided into companies (probably of 100 men) under captains,
and “if the men grudge upon reasonable ground for lack of money,”
Norfolk “will cause the captains to give them money out of their own
purses.” From this it is evident that it was almost as costly to fight
for the King as to fight against him[1158].

After sending off this despatch, Norfolk rode to his own company at
Cambridge, leaving Exeter at Ampthill to discharge the last of the 2000.
This was finally done on Friday 20 October, though Sir Anthony Browne,
who was collecting men for the Duke of Suffolk, secured 600 of the best
mounted. “The rest, being mostly horsed, made haste home to spare their
charges.” These men were “able and well furnished” and were very much
displeased at being dismissed, after all the trouble of attending the
musters, without having seen any fighting[1159]. But on Friday night
Norfolk at Cambridge, and Sir William Paulet and Sir William Kingston at
Beaconsfield, received imperative orders from the Council that they
should on no account dismiss any men. If some had gone already they must
be resummoned and sent to Suffolk under Sir Anthony Browne, with ten
pieces of ordnance[1160]. Norfolk promptly answered that the Ampthill
men could not be recovered. He must have felt a certain satisfaction in
making this reply, for he was very angry that the troops which had been
refused him should be granted to Suffolk. Sir Anthony Browne had secured
600 horsemen, and Norfolk marvelled that he should need such a large
number, unless there was a new outbreak in Lincolnshire. He added
bitterly, “I am apt to think that some desire great company more for
glory than necessity.” As for the munitions he was ordered to send to
Suffolk, he could not spare any. He had never even heard of the ten
pieces of ordnance he was now ordered to give up. What he had was his
own, and so small that it was carried in two carts. As to money, £2000
had been despatched to him, but he had only received £1200. More was
promised him in ten days, but “neither I nor my lord Marquis will be
able to keep our companies so long without money.” If he had not
unsparingly spent £1500 of his own “here would have been ill work. The
pension of France hath now done no hurt to me nor the King’s
affairs.”[1161] Sir William Paulet and Sir William Kingston returned to
Ampthill and did their best to produce the missing 2000 men, but
evidently they had little hope of success[1162]; in the end the attempt
was abandoned, after a brisk correspondence about the men and the
munitions for Suffolk had been carried on for some time[1163].

On Saturday 21 October “the Lord Privy Seal’s band” consisting of 200
horsemen under Richard Cotton joined Norfolk. The leader’s letter
describes the conditions under which the troops advanced:

  “Pleaseth it your lordeship to be advertysed that according to your
  commandement I have presented your company to my lorde of norffolk and
  Mr browne the hoole nomber of them was cc. we be all apoynted to
  attende upon Mr brownen who haith willed me to take like charge of
  your lordshipes company like as yor lordshipe commanded me at my
  departing frome you, which god willing there shalbe no defaulte in me
  for wante of good will to do that thing that the kinges highness may
  be truley served. And to the advauncement of your honore, by the
  advice of Mr Browne I have retorned back xl of your company of such as
  ware worste horsed, so that we ar nowe clx of as well-horsed men as
  any ar in the company and no suche of no one manes brynging. There
  were dyvers of essex men which ar tall men of person and good archers
  to the nomber of xii which hade no sadles butt rode uppon panylles
  after there countre facion which I thought was not to your honour. Soe
  I have bought them sadles with other apperell for there horses
  according as in my conceyte was meyte for your honour. Great murmer
  and gruging there was amonges your lordshipes company by cause thay
  thought the waiges of viiid by the day was to little to fynde them and
  there horses. Soe as well as my pore witt will serve me I have
  pacefied them with fare wordes soe that there is little said thereof
  nowe emonges any of us. Your lordship haith here many of your houshold
  servauntes which ar yonger brether and as I am privye unto have no
  greate store of money; they be at your lordshipes horseyng; ether they
  shall marre there horses for lacke of meat or elles make suche sheftes
  for money that shall not stend well with your lordshipes honor. I
  beseche your lordship to pardon me for wrytting this rudely and pleyne
  unto you butt I se the thynges that is like to ensue that I can no
  lesse doe if I shall do according as your lordship put me in trust,
  but to advertyce you. I beseche your lordship that I may know your
  pleasure in the premisses if it please you that I shall geve unto
  every gentilman being a yonger brother asertyn [sum] which in my pore
  oppenyon ware moche to your honour. Your pleasure knowen therein I
  shall lay forthe the money of myne owen purse till wee retorne.

  This berer William Jonson haith by mysfortune hurte his arme soe that
  he is not able to goo in this vyage. I assure your lordship we shall
  have agret lacke of hym in the company for he was a man that toke
  moche payne in provyding of lodinge for all oure company. I trust your
  lordshipe will take no displeasure with me for keping one of your
  cokes here for we may ill spare hym emonges the company. This the holy
  gost have you in hys costodye. Frome burne the xxi day of october

                                          your dayly orator
                                                  Rychard Cotton.”[1164]

On 18 October the King had despatched letters to Shrewsbury by Thomas
Miller, Lancaster Herald, with orders that the Earl should advance on
the rebels immediately, “not doubting that they will seek to hide
themselves at your approach.”[1165] Shrewsbury was to send the herald to
the rebels with an enclosed proclamation. The effect of this mission has
already been told[1166].

In obedience to his orders, Shrewsbury advanced; but these orders were
issued in the mistaken belief that Norfolk would join him in a day or
two. On Saturday 21 October when Shrewsbury was as far north as
Scrooby[1167], Norfolk had only reached Cambridge and Exeter was still
further behind[1168]. The King was aware of Norfolk’s situation, but did
not know how far Shrewsbury had advanced. He wrote to Norfolk,
commending his intention of sending letters and proclamations to the
rebels, in order to pacify them, if possible, without a battle. He bade
him forward orders to Shrewsbury to guard the line of the Trent and hold
the bridges at Nottingham and Newark. Shrewsbury was to “settle himself
in such a strong place as he may keep without danger till Norfolk come
to him.” As soon as their forces were united, they were to wait together
on the Trent until the rebels either attempted a crossing or
dispersed[1169]. This admirable plan of campaign seems to have been
originally Norfolk’s own; unfortunately it was frustrated by
Shrewsbury’s advance. The line of the Don, which Shrewsbury proposed to
defend, had none of the advantages of the Trent. The river was smaller
and could easily be forded even in winter. The people on both banks
favoured the rebels; food was therefore hard to get, and the country was
barren, low and unhealthy.

At 6 o’clock in the morning of Monday 23 October Norfolk was at Newark
in great uneasiness of mind. Attended only by four servants, he had far
outridden his company, which could not be expected until the next day,
while Exeter would not arrive till the day after. The distance between
Newark and Doncaster was then called thirty miles, but by modern
reckoning it is nearer forty. Norfolk had already written to Shrewsbury,
imploring him on no account to risk a battle. If Shrewsbury should be
forced to fight and were defeated, the only chance of checking the
rebels was for Suffolk and himself to hold the bridges over the Trent.
He feared the result of Shrewsbury’s advance so much that he wrote to
ask the King to send orders that Suffolk must co-operate with him[1170].
For two nights Norfolk had had no rest, but now he indulged in three or
four hours’ sleep at Newark Castle. When he awoke, it was to find that
Lord Talbot had ridden in from his father’s camp. Shrewsbury was lying
on the south bank of a little river called Goole Dyke, about four miles
south of Doncaster, which he intended to enter by Rossington Bridge.

Lord Talbot’s news was good. Shrewsbury had no intention of fighting
until Norfolk joined him on Wednesday or Thursday; but he hoped he would
be able to advance from Doncaster before that, as his men were dying
“very sore of the sickness.” The rebels had made no attempt to win the
bridges at Doncaster and Rossington. It was “sore bruited” that they
would not fight at all. Many true subjects had enlisted under the King’s
banner. Sir Henry Saville had been among his tenants at Wakefield “and
brought much harness and men from them.” Sir Brian Hastings had left
Hatfield and brought in his “300 tall horsemen,” but Suffolk had not yet
sent the detachment which Shrewsbury needed as scouts and skirmishers.
So far Talbot was reporting what he knew to be true; in addition he had
heard rumours that Sir Richard Tempest had captured one of the rebel
leaders, and that Lord Dacre and Lord Scrope were marching south by way
of Skipton and Wakefield to join the King’s army. This rumour, however,
was unfounded, although Talbot believed it. Sir Richard Tempest was with
the rebels at Pontefract, and Lord Scrope was riding to their musters at
the head of the dalesmen, while Lord Dacre was lying neutral in Naworth
Castle[1171]. Lord Talbot also brought news of the surrender of
Pontefract, and hinted at his suspicions of Darcy’s loyalty. Pontefract
Castle, he said, was considered stronger than Newark, and Norfolk agreed
that Newark might be held against any force which had not heavy
ordnance,—“greater pieces than demi-culverins.”

Shrewsbury was evidently in as much danger of under-estimating the
rebels’ strength as Norfolk had been of over-estimating it. The news did
not entirely overcome Norfolk’s anxiety; he still feared “only two
things,—lack of victual and my lord Steward’s fighting before his
coming.” Talbot carried back Norfolk’s instructions as to how
Shrewsbury’s camp should be fortified and defended in case of a sudden
attack. Norfolk was in hopes that many of the rebels would come over to
him on hearing the letters and proclamations which he was about to send,
for ever since the victory of Flodden he had been more beloved in the
north than any other nobleman, a circumstance which had not escaped the
King’s jealous notice[1172].

The two armies, that of the Pilgrims and that of the King, were now in
touch with one another, and it is possible to follow their movements
simultaneously.

On Monday 23 October, when Lord Talbot was with Norfolk at Newark and
Shrewsbury’s forces lay at Rossington Bridge, the rebels continued their
advance from Pontefract. Gostwick, Shrewsbury’s treasurer, was at
Tickhill, south-west of Rossington, and from there he sent for Lawrence
Cook, the Prior of the White Friars at Doncaster, and ordered him to
cross the water and ride towards Pontefract to view the Pilgrims’ army,
bringing back word of their number and equipment. The prior secretly
sympathised with the Pilgrims, but, like many of his brethren, he was
much more afraid of the King. He went among the rebels in perfect safety
and even had an interview with Aske, either at Pontefract or somewhere
near it on the road south. The prior easily gathered what information he
needed and gave some in return. The captain asked if Shrewsbury’s men
were in Doncaster, and finding they had not even reached the town, still
less prepared it for defence, he said he would be there before them and
lie there that night. Perhaps he said this in the heat of the moment, or
he may have given a misleading account of his plans in order to hurry
Shrewsbury’s advance, for he was too able a leader to risk a battle with
a swollen river in his rear[1173]. Another reason for avoiding Doncaster
was the presence of the plague in the town; the Pilgrims seem to have
escaped the infection by keeping to the north of the river[1174]. The
prior told Aske that Gostwick expected a large sum of money from the
King. It arrived at Tickhill next day, and Aske sent to know if it had
come, but the prior, being then so much nearer the King’s forces,
assured the messenger untruly that it had not. After his inspection of
the rebels on Monday (or possibly the day before, as he gives no dates)
he returned quietly to Doncaster, and thence went to Shrewsbury and
reported what he had seen[1175].

On Monday Sir Thomas Percy and his 4000 men advanced from Wentbridge to
Hampole, about six miles away[1176], where he was joined by the forces
of the Bishopric and Richmondshire, under Lords Latimer, Lumley, and
Neville, Sir Thomas Hilton, and Robert Bowes[1177]. These companies
completed the “vaward,” which was altogether about 12,000 strong. They
encamped near “a little nunnery beside Robin Hood’s Cross.”[1178]

Next morning, Tuesday 24 October, Aske rode into the camp at Hampole,
and ordered a muster on the neighbouring heath “above Barnesdale.”[1179]
The men of the North and West Ridings, who had remained at Pontefract,
were now coming forward under Sir Robert Constable; they formed the
“middle ward.” The “rear ward,” composed of the men from Mashamshire and
the Dales, had not yet reached Pontefract[1180], and only the Archbishop
and Lord Darcy remained in the town with their own servants[1181]. They
had been left “for their ease,” and indeed Lee’s military ardour was not
such as to enable him to spend nights in the open among all the
discomforts of an autumn campaign; while Darcy was over eighty, and
though still vigorous in body and mind, suffered much from his old
wound. Nevertheless, when their absence became known at the muster, the
commons’ suspicion was aroused, and they held them “in great jealousy
and despair,” for what was considered lack of zeal, if not positive
unfaithfulness[1182].

It was perhaps at this time that Darcy suggested to Lee that the
Pilgrims’ oath and articles should be printed, in order that they might
circulate more freely and that their principles might be known. Lee
protested against this, as he did against every decided step, and the
matter was allowed to drop[1183]. It is an interesting question where
Darcy proposed to have the articles printed. To send them abroad would
have taken too long, as the printed copies were wanted at once. There
had formerly been a printing-press at York, and possibly one at
Beverley, but that was twenty years ago, and the press had long since
been removed[1184]. This difficulty may have had as much to do with the
abandonment of the scheme as the Archbishop’s remonstrances.

While the muster was being held at Barnesdale Heath on Tuesday,
Lancaster Herald was brought to Aske and delivered a letter to the rebel
leaders from Shrewsbury at Doncaster. It was read, and the captains held
a brief council before the host. They decided that Aske should ride to
Pontefract and consult Darcy as to their answer, and the captain
immediately set out, only pausing to appoint two gentlemen, Robert
Delariver and Anthony Brackenbury, to see to Miller’s comfort and
safety[1185]. The letter was one of those brought by Talbot from
Norfolk. The Duke suggested that much useless bloodshed might be
prevented if “four of the discreetest men of the north parts” came to
the lords at Doncaster and explained the causes of the rising. Hostages
would be given in pledge of their safety[1186].

There is no account of the considerations which affected the decision of
Aske and Darcy as to the answer. They were quite willing to treat; this
was the first occasion on which the King or his lieutenants had made any
inquiry as to the causes of their assembly, and such a tacit admission
that they were not in arms from mere wilfulness was a step forward. The
Pilgrims had always protested their loyalty to the King’s person. They
thought that he had been led astray by lowborn favourites, but, if he
would grant the petition of his faithful subjects, war was the last
thing that they desired. On the other hand, if he refused to redress
grievances which were felt by so large a part of his kingdom, his
subjects would be justified in using armed force to bring him to a more
reasonable frame of mind. Such was the attitude of the Pilgrims, and
they could not maintain it if they attacked the King’s army before their
petition had been presented, and consequently before they knew whether
the King would grant it or reject it. The pressing question during the
next few days was, were they to sacrifice this conditional loyalty and
use their advantage over Norfolk’s weakness?

It was a momentous problem which they had to solve. If they gave battle,
and failed, their cause was lost for ever; but if they won the immediate
result would be a civil war, and that a religious civil war, of all
forms of strife the bitterest and most cruel; it might be complicated by
a foreign invasion, which, in those days of England’s weakness, might
conceivably have led to conquest and annexation. The Pilgrims were not
blind to these possibilities. They declared that though they had taken
up arms to amend their own affairs, they would accept no help from
Scotland, and if an invasion was threatened during the time of
insurrection, they protested that they were as ready as ever to defend
the Borders. To plunge the country into war was a desperate step which
they had only contemplated as a possible last resource in the future.
Nevertheless their present situation was tempting; the King’s army was
before them, barring their road south, but scattered, unprovided,
fainthearted and entirely at their mercy. It was in their power to
strike a decisive blow—a blow from which the King’s party might never
recover. It is easy to guess what would have been the decision of a
Caesar or a Cromwell; but the Pilgrims had no such leader in their
ranks. Aske and Darcy were not world’s wonders, and they made their
choice as disinterested men, honestly desiring their country’s good,
were likely to do.

They determined to accept the Duke’s offer of a conference, but they did
not altogether trust him. They would not risk four of their leaders in
his host, but they proposed that four, six, eight, or twelve lords and
gentlemen from each side should meet at some place on neutral ground.
The northern gentlemen would then explain the grievances which had
forced them to rise, and would discuss these points and the best road to
a peaceful conclusion with the Duke and his companions[1187].

If this proposal were accepted, it would be well to have a clearer and
fuller set of articles than had yet been drawn up, and Aske applied to
the Archbishop for help as to the wording of the “spiritual articles.”
Lee had already been requested by various gentlemen to help them in this
matter, but he had not the smallest intention of doing anything so
imprudent. He first returned evasive answers, and when pressed said
testily, “that they had spun a fine thread if they made so great a
business and could not tell why.”[1188] He was very anxious to go home,
and Aske would probably have been glad to give him leave, for, though he
expected money and advice from high ecclesiastics, he did not encourage
them to march with the army[1189]; but the commons were in a suspicious
mood[1190], and Aske did not dare to return from Pontefract to Hampole
without both Darcy and Lee. The Archbishop’s servants told him that Aske
had threatened to “strike off his head” if Lee did not go to the field,
and “from that day he accounted himself a prisoner and went with Lord
Darcy.”[1191] Nevertheless the Pilgrims continued to believe that the
Archbishop sympathised with their cause[1192].

The vanguard returned from the muster to their camp at Hampole for the
night of Tuesday 24 October. The weather was bad, and early next
morning, as the men crouched over their smoking camp fires, cooking
their rations as best they could, a little troop of about thirty
horsemen from Doncaster appeared, which hovered round the camp,
examining their numbers and position[1193]. When no one could strike an
enemy beyond longbow range, warfare was a very intimate and personal
affair. It does not seem that much notice was taken of the reconnoitring
party, until they chanced upon a couple of stragglers from the Pilgrims’
camp, doubtless in search of stray poultry; the King’s men seized these
two, made them fast and began their retreat[1194]. The shouts of their
captured comrades roused the Pilgrims, “all men ran to their horses,”
and after a hot pursuit the King’s men were obliged to let their
prisoners go and hasten their own retreat[1195]. The whole camp was in
commotion, every man who could get to his horse joining in the chase.
Stapleton was among the first, who never paused till they reached the
top of Scawby Hill. Before them lay the valley of the Don; the thirty
horsemen, undiminished, were making for the bridge at the gallop.
Inflamed by the sight of a flying foe, the Pilgrims looked upon
Doncaster as absurdly near and unprotected. There was a general cry to
surprise the town by a sudden attack. Wild and disordered as the
pursuers were, an attempt so utterly unexpected might have perhaps been
successful. But Stapleton thought the risk too great, and riding along
the ragged front of the company, he succeeded by commands, entreaties
and reasonings in turning them from their purpose[1196].

Other skirmishes took place in the two or three days during which the
armies lay facing one another. One was doubly interesting as it
concerned the badge of the Five Wounds, and caused the only known
casualty among the Pilgrims. “Mr Bowes scrimmaged with his company with
the scoriers (scouts) of the Duke of Norfolk’s host, and there one of Mr
Bowes’ own servants ran at another of his own fellows, because he had a
cross on his back, and weened he had been on the party of the Duke of
Norfolk’s host, and there with a spear killed his own fellow. And for
that chance then was there a cry for all men to have the badge of I H S
or the Five Wounds on him both before and ’hind them. And there, to his
(Aske’s) knowledge, was all the men that was slain or hurt of either
party, during all the time of business.”[1197] The unlucky Durham man
must have put on his white coat with St George’s cross, which he would
be accustomed to wear at the King’s musters.

On Wednesday 25 October Aske, Darcy and the Archbishop left Pontefract,
and came to Hampole, overtaking on the way Sir Robert Constable and the
middle ward, who had probably lain at Wentbridge the night before. The
rear ward seem to have reached Pontefract and taken up their quarters
there either this day or Thursday[1198]. Lancaster Herald was brought to
the captain by the two in whose charge he was left, and he was
despatched to Doncaster with the message that the Pilgrims were willing
to arrange a conference[1199].

The vanguard had gone forward to Pickburn, about a mile nearer to
Doncaster than Hampole, where the middle ward now occupied their old
camp. The little nunnery had been converted into headquarters for Lord
Darcy and the gentlemen of his division. A dry resting-place was very
desirable “for there was a sore rain, which raised the waters,
especially the Don,” and “the people were lodged in woods and
villages.”[1200] Aske sent out only skirmishers on “scoutwatch,” as it
was called; these were Bishopric men, who, like all Borderers, were
particularly expert at this open, individual kind of fighting. There
were no scouts born and bred to the work in the King’s host, and the
Pilgrims had the best of it in the various little brushes which took
place, the redcross men who showed themselves on the north bank of the
river being promptly encountered and forced to take refuge with their
own people across the bridge.

While Lord Darcy, the Archbishop and Sir Robert Constable were taking up
their quarters at Hampole, Aske rode on to Pickburn to hear the reports
of the scouts and spies as they came in, and to take counsel with the
commanders of the vanguard. In the evening Lancaster Herald returned to
the Pilgrims’ camp with further messages from Shrewsbury. He brought,
not an answer to their last proposal, but an exhortation to the rebels
prepared by Norfolk some days before, which bade them either humbly
submit themselves to the King’s mercy as ungrateful traitors, or make
ready to abide danger by battle, to be given them by the Duke “in place
convenient.”[1201] Shrewsbury must simply have sent it on as soon as it
arrived without considering how far the negotiations had already
advanced. It was particularly irritating to the Pilgrims, as it appeared
to be a deliberate set-back to all schemes for a peaceful settlement.

A long debate followed the reading of the letters. The insurgent leaders
knew that their numbers were overwhelming. Shrewsbury could not muster,
at the highest estimate, 8000 men at Doncaster. Most of his army were at
Scrooby; Norfolk and Exeter at places even further south[1202]. Such
cavalry as he had were ill-horsed; many, “every third man,” according to
rumour, were with the Pilgrims at heart[1203]; the rest were “faint” and
without enthusiasm; such as did not desert outright were not likely to
give much trouble if attacked with vigour[1204]. Aske’s scouts brought
him word as to where every company of the enemy was quartered, and how
the bridge was defended and guarded; no muster could take place on the
south bank without his knowledge. In contrast to Shrewsbury’s troops,
the Pilgrims were at least thirty thousand strong; they were “as tall
men, well-horsed and well appointed, as any men could be.” Every witness
attests their devotion to their cause. “There were neither gentlemen nor
commons willing to depart, but to proceed in the quarrel; yea, and that
to the death.”[1205] In these circumstances the leaders naturally
resented Norfolk’s haughty and final tone, as if he had command of the
situation. The Durham lords were ready to accept the new messages as a
sign that all further negotiations were broken off; they advised that
the challenge should be accepted, and that the attack should be made at
once[1206]. There was little to fear as to the issue. Norfolk afterwards
declared that Doncaster was in the greatest danger “if the rebels had
taken their advantage like men of war.” As soon as the rain ceased and
the waters of the Don fell, Shrewsbury’s position would be quite
untenable[1207].

Aske, however, headed a party in the council which favoured moderate
measures[1208]. He pointed out that they had assembled for the very
purpose of laying their grievances before the King for remedy. There was
no shame in discussing their petition with the King’s lieutenant; it was
only another step on their Pilgrimage[1209]. Norfolk, Shrewsbury, and
the other lords of the old noble blood were the very men that the
Pilgrims were suggesting as more suitable counsellors for the King than
his lowborn favourites; the lords had probably more sympathy for the
rebels’ demands than they dared to show. It was bad policy to attack
those most able to further the petition at court, where the Pilgrims had
little influence. Whatever the result of a pitched battle, it would make
a civil war inevitable. Even though the Pilgrims were successful at
first, the King might prove the stronger in the end, and all the nobles
and gentlemen of the northern counties would be “attainted, slain and
undone, and the country made a waste for the Scots.”[1210]

Darcy was in favour of negotiating for another reason. In his opinion
“it were better (to) have garrison war than hosting war in time of
winter.”[1211] The Pilgrims were not hampered by the bad weather to the
same extent as the royal troops. They were advancing at their leisure,
without ordnance, and they were well supplied with food and fuel from a
base not a dozen miles away. Nevertheless a truce would give them time
to organise and develop. They would be able to determine on the best
places to hold, and to provide for their defence in case the petitions
were refused. They might possibly receive money and encouragement from
the Pope. Above all, the leaders could trust the commons not to lose
heart during a short truce. All were steadfastly determined to fight if
the King would not listen to them[1212]. Of course the King would
equally be able to strengthen himself; but the Pilgrims trusted a good
deal to the secret assurances of sympathy which they received from the
midland and southern shires. The King might summon a larger army, he was
not likely to raise one any more loyal.

In brief Aske and those who thought with him “feared not the royal
troops though they were 40,000,” but they did not desire civil war.
Their one aim was certain political and religious reforms, and they
endeavoured to bring their object to pass in as constitutional a manner
as was then possible. They would lose little or nothing by consenting to
negotiate for a truce; they might gain much; at least they would
preserve their consistency.

These were the chief considerations which Aske laid before the council.
The earlier ones are stated in his own writings, while the later may be
gathered from the circumstances. His arguments convinced the lords and
gentlemen. They decided that they were strong enough to treat, and that
they would accept Norfolk’s first offer, not his second. Lancaster
Herald was again despatched with the message that four gentlemen would
come, upon due pledges, to speak with the Duke next day. Robert Bowes,
who was to be one of the four, set out at once with Aske for Hampole to
announce the arrangement to Darcy and Constable[1213].

None of the leaders entirely trusted the Duke. They thought that he
would not “dishonour himself by making a night attack—a kind of battle
seldom heard of, especially at that season, being November,”[1214] but
they were quite prepared for such an infringement of military etiquette.
The first question that Darcy asked Bowes was “who was that night in
scoutwatch?” This being satisfactorily answered, they discussed the
details of the meeting next day, and also what their tactics should be
in case of battle[1215]. It was not improbable that no peaceful
settlement would be concluded, and in that case they would be able to
make the most of their present advantage after having done their best to
avoid war.

On the night of Wednesday 25 October Norfolk, with Surrey and about
thirty gentlemen and servants, lay at Welbeck. His men, ordnance and
artillery, were at Tuxford, while Exeter had reached Nottingham with
only part of his company. At midnight Norfolk was roused by the arrival
of posts from the north, who brought the news that Shrewsbury had
arranged to treat with the rebels, and that the Duke’s presence at
Doncaster was urgently required.

The letter which he wrote to the King before setting out shows that the
Pilgrims did him no injustice when they suspected his intentions:

  “Sir havyng this present hour receyved the lettre herin closed and
  never hard one worde fro my lord steward but this sith Monday last at
  v in the morning not with standyng dyvers sent fro me to hym to know
  of his newes, I being in bed and not a slepe accompanyed with suche as
  be named in a sedul herin closed, I have taken my horse only
  accompanyd with my brother William and Sir richard page, Sir arthur
  darcy and iiii of my servants to ryde towards my lord steward
  accordyng to his desire, not knowyng wher th’ enemys be nor of what
  nomber, nor no thyng more than is conteyned in their letter, wherin I
  am so far priked that what so ever shalbe the sequell I shall not so
  spare the litle poure carkes that for any ease or danger other men
  shall have cause to obiect any lageousnes in me and Sir most humble I
  besech you to take in gode part what so ever promes I shall make unto
  the rebells (if any suche I shall by th’ advyse of others make) for
  sewerly I shall observe no part theroff for any respect of that other
  myght call myn honour distayned langer than I and my company with my
  lord marquess may be assembled to gyder, thynkyng and repewting that
  none oth nor promes made for polecy to serve you myn only master and
  soverayne can destayne me who shall rather be torne in a myllion of
  peces then to show one poynt of cowardise or untrouth to your maieste.

  Sir I trust the sendyng for me is ment to gode purpose and if it
  chaunse to me to myscary most noble and gracious Master be gode to my
  sonnys and to my poure doghter. And if my lord steward had not
  advansed fro trent unto my comyng and that then I myght have folowed
  th’ effect of my letter wryten you from Cambrige these traytors with
  ease myght have be[en] subdewed. I pray god that hap torne not to
  moche hurt. In hast at Welbek xiiii myles fro dancaster at xii at
  nyght.

                                 Yr most humble servant
                                                     T. Norffolk.”[1216]

At one or two o’clock on the morning of Thursday 26 October Norfolk
reached Doncaster in answer to Shrewsbury’s summons. He came in the
greatest anxiety, offering to sacrifice his honour to his loyalty, but,
considering how closely his political aims resembled those of the rebels
it is probable that he was only partly sincere in this. He may have
intended double-dealing with the King as well as the enemy—soothing
Henry’s anger by assurances of the piecrust nature of his promises,
while he secretly hoped that the King would not dare to set aside terms
made openly in his name. Henry at least suspected this, but however true
it might be the state of affairs at Doncaster must have convinced the
most eager general that it was wise to treat rather than to fight. Lack
of food, fuel and shelter, scanty wages and disease were rapidly sapping
the feeble loyalty of Shrewsbury’s men. If Norfolk did not really see
and believe the position to be desperate, he still reported it so, and
eagerly as the King expected and demanded more favourable tidings, none
of the royal officers attempted to modify the Duke’s gloomy
reports[1217].

At dawn a great muster was proclaimed in the Pilgrims’ host. The
vanguard came forward from Pickburn and the middleward from Hampole.
After the morning had fully come, “the whole host appeared at the
Stowping Sise before Doncaster.”[1218] Stowping Sise and Scawsby
Lease[1219], which is also mentioned as the mustering place, are
different parts of the plain on the north bank of the Don.

With spirits quite undamped by the wet night, company after company
filed past and took its place in the ranks behind St Cuthbert’s crimson
and silver standard and the Pilgrimage banner of the Five Wounds of
Christ, which device every man wore in miniature on his breast and back.
All “the flower of the north” were there[1220]. The captains spurred up
and down, striving to bring their men into good array; and the companies
engaged in friendly rivalry, each trying to excel its neighbours in
order and discipline. Experience and popularity both proved useful in
this matter; Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, Sir Ralph Ellerker, Robert
Bowes, and Roger Lassells marshalled the smartest companies[1221].

Priests and friars moved along the lines, commending and encouraging the
soldiers; no man, they said, should fear to die in defence of the Faith,
with the sign of Christ’s Passion over his heart[1222]. Perhaps the
ranks chanted the hymn made for the Pilgrims by the monks of Sawley. It
is well fitted for a marching song, and there is a certain charm,
between quaintness and wildness, in the irregular lines, which are at
least simple and sincere:

                   “God that rights all
                   Redress now shall
                   And what is thrall
                       Again make free,
                   By this voyage
                   And Pilgrimage
                   Of young and sage
                       In this country.

                   Whom God grant grace!
                   And for the space
                   Of this their trace
                       Send them good speed,
                       With health, wealth and speed—
                   Of sins release
                   And joy endless
                       When they be dead[1223].”

It is a relief to find that the vicar of Brayton was not with the host.
That disreputable person had gone quietly home, after he had secured, at
the spoiling of Sir Brian Hastings’ house, fifteen head of cattle and at
least £3 worth of goods[1224].

It is impossible to give the exact number of the Pilgrims. Aske, who was
in the best position to know, twice stated that there were 30,000 men or
more at the muster, divided into vanguard and middleward, and that the
rearward at Pontefract were 12,000 strong; but even Aske probably had
not very definite information[1225]. The only other witness who gave
figures was Marmaduke Neville, a captain of the Bishopric, who stated
that there were 28,000 at the muster and 12,000 at Pontefract[1226].

There is no doubt that, even if the rearward was not 12,000 strong, it
was believed to be so in the forward host. Allowing the same number for
the vanguard and middleward, there would be 24,000 at the muster, and
36,000 men would be the total number of Pilgrims assembled in arms under
Aske’s direct command. The numbers are large, considering that only
Yorkshire and Durham had sent men, that, as the leaders declared, every
man was efficiently if roughly armed and provided with 20_s._, and that
the greater part were horsed. It is possible that their strength was
greatly overestimated.

The vanward was composed of all the men from the Bishopric of Durham,
under the command of Lords Lumley, Neville and Latimer and Sir Thomas
Hilton, and the men of Cleveland and part of Richmondshire under Sir
Thomas Percy and Robert Bowes; in the middleward were the men of the
East and West Ridings, and of the Ainstey of York, with almost all the
knights and gentlemen or their eldest sons from those parts, under the
command of Sir Robert Constable and Lord Darcy. These forces completed
the muster at Stowping Sise. The rearward at Pontefract included the
western parts of Richmondshire, together with the men from Masham,
Ripon, Kirkbyshire, Wensleydale, Fendale and Netherdale, under the
command of Lord Scrope, Sir Christopher Danby, Sir William Mallory, the
Nortons, the Markenfields and many more knights and gentlemen. Aske
moved constantly between the two forward divisions, though his place, in
case of an engagement, was with his own Howdenshire men in the
middleward[1227].

When all were in array, the lords and gentlemen held a council before
the host. They agreed that Sir Thomas Hilton, Sir Ralph Ellerker, Robert
Bowes, and Robert Challoner should go on the embassy to the Duke. At the
head of so splendid an army, with Doncaster lying before them, the war
party seem to have made their last suggestion of immediate attack; the
town might be taken almost without effort[1228]; Shrewsbury and Norfolk
might be captured and forced to take the Pilgrims’ oath. But the
moderate party again prevailed; they argued that the more evident their
superiority, the more likely they were to obtain favourable terms. The
leaders resolved on the five essential points which were weighty enough
to explain their rising. The articles were not written down, but Robert
Bowes undertook to repeat them to the Duke from memory[1229], an easy
feat, as they were in substance the original five:

First, that the Faith might be truly maintained.

Second, that the ancient liberties of the Church might be maintained.

Third, that the unpopular statutes might be repealed and that the law
might stand as it did at the beginning of the King’s reign “when his
nobles did order under his Highness.”

Fourth, that the “villein blood” might be expelled from the Council and
noble blood restored.

Fifth, that Cromwell, Richard Riche, and the heretic bishops might be
deprived and banished or otherwise punished as subverters of the laws of
God and of the commonwealth[1230].

On these terms the Pilgrims were willing to accept the King’s general
pardon and return peaceably to their homes. The articles are expressed
in vague and wide terms, but the messengers who carried them were ready
to amplify and explain their provisions. The vagueness may have been
adopted deliberately because, in the first place, the Pilgrims did not
wholly agree among themselves—some, for instance, were warmly in favour
of the papal supremacy, while others were willing to accept the royal
supremacy. In the second place, the general character of the articles
would make it easier for the delegates on both sides to come to an
agreement. There was no expression used which came within the scope of
the Treason Act, and there were no details over which the two parties
might haggle and quarrel. Henry, with his usual adroitness, seized upon
this vagueness at once and turned it to his own advantage. He declared
that he could make no direct answer to articles which were so general,
vague and obscure. His flatterers borrowed his expressions. Archbishop
Lee declared that the rebels would not write down the articles for
“their enterprise could not be avowed.”[1231] Henry’s panegyrist,
William Thomas, declared that “when they [the rebels] came to reasoning
in very deed they wist not well what to demand except the preservation
of their holy mother church, which their Prelates and Religious did
evermore beat into their heads.”[1232] Yet when the Pilgrims, in answer
to the King’s criticism, proceeded to draw up a detailed list of their
grievances, they were told that it was “a double iniquity to fall into
rebellion and also after to procure matters to be set forth to justify
that rebellion.”[1233] The two statutes which the Pilgrims most strongly
opposed were the Act of Succession, which declared Princess Mary
illegitimate, and the Act of Suppression. The latter was covered by the
second article, and they were afraid to press the other too strongly,
lest they should compromise Mary, who had of late been treated more
kindly. The third article included this statute, besides the Act of
Uses, and all the other unpopular measures of the long parliament, even
to the alienation of the Percy estates to the crown. The Pilgrims
probably did not hope to bring about such an extremely sweeping
reaction, but they realised that in order to obtain a little from Henry
they must begin by demanding a great deal.

Four hostages were delivered to Aske in pledge for the safety of Sir
Thomas Hilton and his companions; the hostages returned with the
Archbishop and Sir Robert Constable to Hampole nunnery for the
night[1234]. There was general hope of good results from the meeting,
and both Darcy and Constable were anxious for an agreement[1235]. They
were encouraged by the gentlemen from Norfolk’s camp, “Mr Herington, Mr
Vellers, Mr Litilton” and another whose name is not known, but may have
been Gifford[1236]. Villiers and Gifford were afterwards accused of
having expressed sympathy with the Pilgrims[1237], and on Gifford’s
return to Buckinghamshire rumour said that he was prepared to raise a
rebellion if the churches were attacked[1238].

If the gentlemen were anxious for a peaceful issue, the commons were by
no means opposed to it. Otherwise the negotiations could scarcely have
proceeded so far. The commons were prepared to fight if the King refused
the petition, but if he granted it without trouble, so much the better.
As to the King’s soldiers, the Pilgrims regarded them rather as friends
who were unwillingly forced to take part against them than as enemies.
All the southern men, they said, “thought as much” as they, but the
southrons dared not show it; as for themselves, they were plain northern
fellows, and said what they thought. The Pilgrims were so certain of
success against the King’s reluctant levies that their sporting
instincts seem to have revolted against so easy a victory. “They wished
the King had sent some younger lords against them than my lord of
Norfolk and my lord of Shrewsbury. No lord in England would have stayed
them but my lord of Norfolk,” whom they honoured as the victor of
Flodden, and suspected to be as much opposed to Cromwell and the
Suppression as themselves[1239].

At noon on Friday 27 October, in due fulfilment of the agreement, Sir
Thomas Hilton and his three companions returned across the bridge and
were delivered in exchange for the hostages. The result of the meeting
was not final. Norfolk, Shrewsbury, Rutland, Huntingdon, Surrey and
their council had received the four and listened to their grievances.
Finding that they brought no written copy of the articles, Norfolk
ordered them to be written down at Bowes’ dictation[1240]. The King’s
nobles said that they were willing to meet a party of the Pilgrims’
leaders, as the latter had proposed, on Doncaster bridge, where they
would discuss the articles in detail. Hilton and the others agreed to a
meeting on the same day of about thirty on each side, and hastened to
announce the arrangement to their own leaders. The representatives had
to be chosen speedily. They were headed by Darcy, Latimer, Lumley, Sir
Robert Constable, Sir John Bulmer, and the four who had crossed in the
morning. Aske did not go with them, but held a second great muster on
the plain. Such a demonstration would remind the southern host of their
strength, guard against any attempt to capture their leaders on the
bridge, and keep the Pilgrims together in order to hear the result,
whatever it might be. Aske “ordered the whole host standing in perfect
array to within night.”[1241] As time went on and still the conference
on the bridge did not break up, some murmuring arose in the ranks. The
old cry was raised that the gentlemen would make terms for themselves
and betray the commons to the King’s vengeance[1242]. Aske had stayed
with them to quiet these fears. Though their suspicion was not justified
on this occasion, the commons had grounds for the fear of the
gentlemen’s desertion. It was that which brought confusion and failure
on the Lincolnshire rising.

No complete account remains of the conference on Doncaster bridge. It
seems probable, however, that Norfolk attacked the Pilgrims’
representatives on their weak side, in the very way that the commons
feared. They were all gentlemen, he may have said, and by their own
account they had been forced to take the rebels’ oath against their
wills. They were now at some distance from their captors, and near the
King’s troops; let them desert in a body and leave the commons without
leaders. The King would doubtless pardon and reward all who took his
part at such a crisis. Darcy’s retort was to turn to the Earl of
Shrewsbury. “Talbot,” he said, “hold up thy long clee[1243] and promise
me the King’s favour, and I will come to Doncaster to you.” Shrewsbury’s
honour was not so accommodating as Norfolk’s. “Well, my lord Darcy, then
ye shall not come [in],” he replied frankly[1244].

Failing in this direct attack, Norfolk seems to have betaken himself to
treachery, or half-treachery, in an attempt to be on good terms with
both sides. The Pilgrims desired a religious reaction, and Norfolk’s
views were well known to be conservative. It was said that he had
persuaded the King to countenance the doctrine of purgatory in the Ten
Articles[1245].

The Pilgrims required the repeal of certain statutes. Norfolk was
reported to have said at Nottingham that the Act of Uses was the worst
act that ever was made[1246], and on the present occasion he was said to
have told the Pilgrims that “it was pity they were on life, so to give
over the Act of Uses,” which was not mentioned in the articles[1247].
Norfolk denied these last words, and the King professed to believe his
denial[1248], but they were afterwards brought up against him[1249].

Darcy and probably others spoke strongly against Cromwell[1250]. Norfolk
could truthfully assure them that he hated Cromwell as much as they did.

The Earl of Surrey seems to have committed an indiscretion on his way
north. At Cambridge and Thetford he had heard and applauded a song
against Suffolk, which was sung by a wandering fiddler, John Hogon, to
the popular tune of “The Hunt Is Up.” The song had as little rhyme or
metre as most political songs and ran:

       “The hunt is up etc.
       The masters of art and doctors of divinity
       Have brought this realm out of good unity,
       Three noblemen have taken this to stay;
       My lord of Norfolk, lord Surrey and my lord of Shrewsbury.
       The Duke of Suffolk might a made England merry—”

No more is preserved[1251]. In July 1537 Surrey was in serious danger on
account of a charge which Darcy brought against him—probably that he had
promised his support to the Pilgrims[1252].

How far Norfolk encouraged the Pilgrims was never discovered, but Lord
Herbert of Cherbury (1649) relates:

  “All this great service of the Duke of Norfolk yet could not exempt
  him from calumny: For the Lord Darcy during his imprisonment had
  accused him, as favouring the rebels’ articles when they first met at
  Doncaster: But the Duke denied it, offering the Duel; saying, that
  Aske (who suffered at York before the said Lord) told him that said
  Lord’s intentions; who (he said) bare him ill-will ever since the Duke
  had solicited the said Lord to deliver Aske into his hands, when he
  was in chief credit with the rebels; which Darcy denying, some
  expostulation pass’d between them. Nevertheless I find the King was so
  well satisfied of the Duke, that those things were pass’d over without
  further questioning.”[1253]

Some of these statements are manifestly incorrect. Aske did not suffer
before Darcy, but a fortnight after, and this part of the story seems to
be a confused memory of Aske’s last words concerning Norfolk and
Cromwell, not Norfolk and Darcy[1254]. On the other hand it is true that
the Duke solicited Darcy to kidnap Aske, much to Darcy’s indignation,
and this is mentioned in no other early printed account of the
Pilgrimage. It is possible that Herbert may have had access to some
report of Darcy’s examination, now lost, and may have found these
interesting particulars there.

Assuming that Herbert’s story is substantially true, it is easy to
understand the meaning of the terms on which a truce was finally
arranged. Norfolk was to ride to the King in all haste, accompanied by
Sir Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes, whose expenses would be paid by the
lords and knights of the Pilgrimage[1255]. The messengers were to lay
the Pilgrims’ petition before the King and to return with his answer.
Within the next two days, both armies must disperse, and a truce,
binding on both sides, was to last until the messengers returned. These
terms at first sight appear to be much less favourable than the Pilgrims
might have been expected to exact in their commanding position, but
Norfolk’s friendly attitude makes all clear. So far were the Pilgrims
from going over to the King that Norfolk promised to be on their side.
He did not yet declare himself openly, because he could be of more use
to them while he continued nominally in the King’s service, but his
influence at court, backed by their armed demonstration, might
reasonably appear a sufficient guarantee for the success of their cause.
When at length the thirty returned from the bridge to the impatient
Pilgrims they were able to announce the terms on which the formal
appointment had been concluded with the King’s nobles, but as Norfolk
required secrecy to be observed with regard to his own intentions, they
could not explain their full grounds for confidence. Nevertheless the
Pilgrims seem to have been well enough contented with the results[1256].

Norfolk’s state of mind is best shown in his letter to the Council,
written a couple of days later on his road south. Henry, angry and
suspicious, believed that his desperation was assumed or, at least,
exaggerated, but the letter bears evident traces of having been composed
by a man in great fear and distress of mind and body.

  “my gode lordes I came to this towne this nyght late wher I founde the
  skantest soper I had many yeres as wery a man as can be and with
  contynewall watche and agony of mynd so tanned [?] that in my liff I
  never was in that case I have be[en] a bed now iii howrys and ii tymes
  waked in that tyme the one with lettres fro my lord of Suffolk th’
  oder fro the Kynges highnes of the xxvii of this moneth the contentes
  wheroff shuld be not necessary to answer our affaires being in the
  trade they now be in. alas my god lordes I have served his highnes
  many tymes without reproch and now inforced to appoynt with the
  rebelles my hert is nere broken. and notwithstondyng that in every
  mannes mowth it is sayde in our armye that I never served his grace so
  well as now as in dissolvyng the army of th’ enemy without los of ours
  yet fearyng how his maiestie shall take the dispeachyng of our bande I
  am the most unquiet man of mynde lyvyng. all others here joyfull and I
  only sorowfull. alas that the valiannt hert of my lord steward wold
  not suffer hym to have taried abouts trent but with his fast hastyng
  forwardes to bryng us into the most bareyne countre of the realme
  wheroff hath insewed th’ effectes that I saw long afore woll fall Gode
  my lordes it was not the feare of th’ enemys hath caused us to
  appoynt, but thre other sore poyntes. foulle wether ande no howsing
  for horse nor man at the most not for the iiid part of the army and no
  wode to make fiers withall, honger both for men and horsis of suche
  sort that of trouth I thynk never Inglishe man saw the like.
  pestilence in the towne mervelous fervent and of suche sort that wher
  I and my son lay in a fryers x or xii howsis sore infected within ii
  butts length, on fryday at nyght the mayers wiff and ii of his
  doghters and one servant died in one howse how many others of the
  towne I know [not] but of souldyers ix and if ther wer lefte in the
  towne or within v myles one lode of hey or one lode of ootes, pese or
  beanys all the purveyors say untrewly. which iii poyntes these ar for
  an armye I report me to your wisdomes and to have advansed to th’
  enemys no vitayle for man nor horse but all devasted by th’ enemys and
  not possible to have yeven batayle but upon apparaunt los theroff. and
  if we shuld have retyred in enemyte assewred rewyn of our company.
  havying no horsmen and they all the floure of the north and how at
  every streyte they shuld at their will have set on the formest part or
  the hindermost your wisdomes can well consyder. and my lordes
  accordyng to my dewtie to advertise the trouth. thogh never prince had
  a company of more trew valiaunt noble men and jantlemen yet right few
  of souldiers but that thoght and think their quarelles to be gode and
  godly. the companys that came with my lord marques and me I trust wold
  have done their partes and the noblemen of the rest. but I feare what
  th’ oders woll. my lords what case we wer in when roger ratclyff[1257]
  and I wept secretly togyders I report me to you neyther of us bothe
  but with gode will wold have be[en] prisoners in turkey to have had it
  at the poynt it is now. thogh not as we wold it wer and yet onys
  agayne my lords wo wo wo worth the tyme that my lord steward went so
  far forth for and he had not ye shuld have herd other newes. ffy ffy
  upon the lord darcy the most arraunt traytor that ever was lyvyng and
  yet both his sonnys trew knightes. old sir roberd constable as ill as
  he and all his blode trew men fynally my gode lordes if the kynges
  highnes shuld wright to me to gather the army to gyders it is not
  possible to be done. and for godds sake help that his highnes cause
  not my lord of Suffolk to put any man to deth unto my comyng. nor
  openly to call the lord darcy traytor and also to stay that I be not
  in his displesure unto the tyme I may be herd and then Judge me
  accordyng to my desertes scribled at tuxford at v in the mornyng this
  sonday.

                                                  yr owne
                                                      T. Norfolk.”[1258]

Late as it was, Darcy and Aske rode to Pontefract on the evening of the
conference, and next morning, Saturday 28 October, they proclaimed the
truce and ordered the rearward to go home. It was easier to give the
order than to see it obeyed. The dalesmen had come far and were very
reluctant to go home empty-handed, without any definite triumph. They
had not been represented at the conference, and consequently felt that
the appointment need not bind them. Their captains, Lord Scrope, Sir
Christopher Danby, and the others, were willing to accept the truce, but
the commons were wild and much more difficult to control than those of
the forward divisions. Nevertheless in the end the commands, arguments
and persuasions of Aske, Darcy and Sir Richard Tempest, seconded by the
efforts of their own leaders, prevailed on the aggrieved and
disappointed rearward, and they sulkily set out on their homeward march,
leaving Pontefract empty for the rest of the army, which lay there that
night[1259].

On the same day Darcy received a message from Thomas Grice, who had
heard from Lancashire that the Earl of Derby intended to attack Sawley
Abbey[1260]. Aske immediately sent the news of the truce to the Pilgrims
there, and Darcy wrote to request Shrewsbury to stop Derby’s operations.
It has already been shown how these messages prevented a collision
between the opposing forces[1261]. At the same time Aske sent messengers
to all the places in which there had been risings with “the most special
letters that could be devised” commanding the Pilgrims to leave the
castles they were besieging, break off their musters and go peaceably
home[1262]. The reception of these letters has been described above.

Norfolk despatched a messenger on Saturday to carry the news of the
truce to the King, and set out himself with Ellerker and Bowes on the
same day[1263].

On Sunday 29 October the King’s heralds, Chester and Carlisle, watched
the last men of the Pilgrims’ host “disparple” at Pontefract and take
their way home over Ferrybridge. The heralds were back at Doncaster
before noon, where Shrewsbury’s army was also disbanding[1264].
Northward went the insurgents, southward the King’s men,—a strangely
peaceful parting. At Tadcaster William Stapleton bade farewell to his
men of Beverley, “desiring them to keep good rule” on the homeward
march, and went back to Wighill, returning to his usual autumn hunting
and shooting as though he had never been the captain of a rebel
host[1265]. Thus the uneasy quiet of an armed truce fell on England at
the end of October 1536.

Norfolk’s anxious letter shows that he expected the King to be very
angry at the news of the truce. Yet all the advantages of it were on the
King’s side. It was very unlikely that the Pilgrims would have another
opportunity of striking so crushing a blow as that which they had
deliberately foregone. Henry did not fail to realise the advantages of
his position, although he was furious at the way in which they were
obtained. He felt it a blot on his honour that his lieutenants should
have made terms with the rebels, instead of scattering them, with or
without bloodshed, and selecting a suitable number for execution; but as
the rebels had dispersed, his experience taught him that they were very
unlikely to assemble again in such large numbers, and he was convinced
that with a little delay, a little diplomacy, and plenty of southern
musters, the north might be brought into complete subjection without any
concessions being made at all.

When the problem is considered in the light thrown on Henry’s character
by the later events of his reign, it is surprising that the leaders of
the Pilgrimage should have expected him to give way so easily. It is
practically certain that while Henry lived and ruled he would never have
changed his policy. The rebels did not propose to dethrone him; yet by
no other means could his work be undone. This they never realised till
too late. It must be remembered that Henry had reigned for twenty years
before doing anything that greatly alarmed his most conservative
subjects. By making the truce, the Pilgrims preserved their consistency.
If the King refused their petition and civil war ensued, he and not they
would be responsible. But as a matter of fact, they did not believe that
the King was in earnest about the religious changes. In their eyes it
was all some devilry of Cromwell’s. It was too absurd that the
monasteries should be suppressed; they had been there for hundreds of
years,—and how could the country do without them? Except for the
wandering reformers and their scattered disciples, English people
believed the New Learning to be not only wicked but ridiculous. Within
two years of his death, Sir Thomas More was busily writing most
excellent and amusing little tracts proving that there was not really
the slightest danger that Catholic England would be infected with
heresy. Although things had now gone so much further, Aske and his
followers still believed implicitly in the strength of their cause. It
was impossible that the Faith should fail to triumph in the end. Wolsey
had suppressed monasteries and countenanced the hated divorce, but he
fell. Anne Boleyn had caused the death of More, Fisher, and the
Carthusian monks, but she had followed them to the scaffold. Cromwell
must go the same way. If once he were dead, and Norfolk, with the other
conservative lords, restored to full power, the work of the last four
years would disappear without difficulty—so the Pilgrims thought—and all
might go on as if no dark-haired coquette and no “Englishman Italianate”
had ever crossed the destinies of England. A complete reaction seemed
perfectly easy then. Looking back, it is equally easy to talk very
wisely of tendencies and inevitable results; but no age can tell whither
it is tending. The Pilgrims could not see that there was no going
back—that the New Learning was bound to triumph and to regenerate as
well as destroy—that despotism had yet a great part to play before it
was shaken and dragged down by civil war and revolution. They were so
sure of their own strength that they were pathetically willing to behave
with chivalrous moderation to the side which they regarded as the
weaker.


                          NOTES TO CHAPTER XI

  Note A. North-country readers will not need to be told that the
  commander-in-chief at Flodden was Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey,
  afterwards second Duke of Norfolk, and that his eldest son, who
  appears so frequently in this book as the third Duke of Norfolk, was
  his second in command. The latter was then simply Lord Thomas Howard,
  Admiral of England. He played an important part in the campaign.
  Holinshed gives him the credit of suggesting the strategy which placed
  the English forces between the Scots army and the Border. In the field
  he commanded the vanguard, with the centre of which he fought. He was
  said to have gone into battle loudly challenging the King of Scots to
  single combat, and to have performed great deeds, slaying the Earl of
  Crawford with his own hand. At the moment when the issue was most
  doubtful,—when the dying Marmion cried:—

                “Tunstall lies dead upon the field,
                His life-blood stains the spotless shield:
                Edmund is down:—my life is reft;
                The Admiral alone is left,”—

  Lord Thomas was actually standing firm in the face of the Scottish
  attack; taking the Agnus Dei from his neck, he sent it to his father
  as a token to hasten to his assistance. He was regarded as the hero of
  the day no less than Surrey[1266].

  Note B. M. Bapst has shown that the correct date of the letter from
  Norfolk to Cromwell, printed in L. and P. XI, 21, as belonging to
  1536, is really 1537[1267].




                              CHAPTER XII
                      THE FIRST WEEKS OF THE TRUCE


The King was at first as well satisfied with the advantage gained by the
appointment at Doncaster, as he was displeased with the means by which
it was obtained. “So sudden recess” was a stain on his honour “if the
contrary might have been maintained.” However, the thing was done, and
it only remained to bring the northern men to a sense of their
wickedness and graciously grant them a pardon on the same terms as the
pardon to Lincolnshire, namely, that they would take and deliver such
culprits as the King’s vengeance demanded, and submit themselves humbly
to his mercy, taking oaths of future obedience[1268].

Henry does not seem to have realised at first that there was any danger
of another rising. On Sunday 29 October he was summoning an army to meet
the rebels, which, he declared, he would lead in person[1269]. Next day
news of the appointment had come, and these musters were countermanded,
with the proviso that the men must be ready again at reasonable warning.
General pardons to all rebels dwelling north of Doncaster for offences
committed before 1 November were drafted on 2 November, in terms
resembling the Lincolnshire pardon. The excepted persons were Robert
Aske, Hutton of Snape, Kitchen of Beverley, William Ombler the bailiff,
Henry Coke of Durham shoemaker, Maunsell vicar of Brayton, and four
others unnamed[1270]. Henry considered that to demand only ten culprits
after a month of open rebellion was a display of the most princely
lenity, and no doubt from his own point of view he was right. It was
intended that this pardon, or rather promise of pardon—for each
individual was to sue in Chancery for his own—should be proclaimed
throughout the north by the King’s heralds, who must observe and report
on the state of the country, especially noticing how deep might be the
supposed penitence of the commons, and how far they were determined to
support the restored monks and nuns. The heralds were also to read long
lectures on the folly of the rebels’ demands, the wickedness of
rebellion, and the beneficence of the King[1271].

On Sunday 29 October Latimer preached the sermon at Paul’s Cross. His
text was “Put on all the armour of God,” and he took occasion to refer
to the northern men, who wore “the Cross and the Wounds before and
behind,” in order to “deceive the poor ignorant people, and bring them
to fight against both the King, the Church, and the Commonwealth.” He
compared the rebels to the Devil, who also professed to put on the
armour of God to deceive the ignorant, and he exhorted his hearers to be
steadfast and loyal, and to assume the true armour of a Christian, with
all the elaborate allegories and analogies for which the subject gives
scope[1272].

All the King’s plans were formed between 29 October, when news of the
appointment reached London, and 2 November, when Norfolk arrived at
court. It may be imagined with what anxious hearts Norfolk, Bowes and
Ellerker set out for Windsor on Saturday 28 October[1273]. They were
followed by Fitzwilliam as the representative of Suffolk and the other
lords at Lincoln, who were almost as uneasy as Norfolk with regard to
the King’s attitude[1274]. Norfolk was so much worn out by his exertions
that he could not travel more than thirty miles a day[1275]. From
Grantham on 30 October he wrote to ask whether he should bring Bowes and
Ellerker straight to court, or leave them in London until he and Lord
Talbot, who had come up with them, had seen the King[1276]. The whole
party was summoned to Windsor, where they arrived at ten o’clock on the
morning of Thursday 2 November, but Norfolk was commanded to come into
the royal presence first. After dinner the King sent for the northern
gentlemen. On first seeing them, Henry could not repress an outburst of
rage, but he allowed himself to be soothed by Norfolk and other members
of the Council, and in the end promised to write an answer to the
articles with his own hand[1277]. He seemed to be taking Norfolk’s
action so quietly that Fitzwilliam sent a reassuring letter to
Suffolk[1278].

Henry’s calm was partly due to the fact that he did not yet realise
fully the crisis to which affairs had come. He saw that the danger had
been very great, and that he was not yet in a position to punish
disaffection with severity, but he still believed that the worst was
over. The rebels had dispersed, and a temporary show of mildness on his
part was all that was required. He could not refuse a very wide pardon,
but there was no need to contemplate any concessions to the Pilgrims’
impudent demands, which they were no longer able to press upon him.
Holding this opinion, he drew up an answer to the articles in his own
hand, “and no creature was privy thereto until it was finished.”[1279]
It ran as follows:

  “First, as touching the maintenance of the Faith; the terms be so
  general, that hard they be to be answered; but if they mean the Faith
  of Christ to which all Christian men be most obliged, we declare and
  protest ourself to be he that always do and have minded to die and
  live in the purity of the same, and that no man can or dare set his
  foot by ours in proving of the contrary; marvelling not a little that
  ignorant people will go about or take upon them to instruct us, (which
  something have been noted learned), what the right Faith should be, or
  that they would be so ingrate and unnatural to us, their most rightful
  King, without any our desert, upon false reports and surmises, to
  suspect us of the same, and give rather credence to forged light tales
  than to the approved truth by us these twenty-eight years used, and by
  our deeds approved.

  To the second, which toucheth the maintenance of the Church, and
  liberties of the same; this is so general a proposition that without
  distinctions no man with truth can answer it neither by God’s laws nor
  by the laws of the realm. For first the Church which they mean must be
  known; secondly, whether they be lawful or unlawful liberties which
  they require; and these known I doubt not but they shall be answered
  according to God’s law, equity and justice. But yet, for all their
  generality, this I dare assever, that (meaning what Church they list)
  we have done nothing in their prejudice that may not be abidden by,
  both by God’s law and man’s; and in our own Church, whereof we be the
  Supreme Head here in Earth, we have not done so much prejudice as many
  of our predecessors have done upon much less grounds. Wherefore, since
  it is a thing which nothing pertaineth to any of you our commons, nor
  that you bear anything therein, I cannot but reckon a great unkindness
  and unnaturalness, in that ye had liever a churl or two should enjoy
  those profits of their monasteries, in supportation of vicious and
  abominable life, than I your prince for supportation of my extreme
  charges, done for your defence.

  The third toucheth three things; the laws, the common wealth, the
  directors of the laws under us. Touching the laws, we expressly dare
  testify that (blind men deeming no colours, nor yet being judges) it
  shall be duly proved that there were never in any of our predecessors’
  days so many wholesome, commodious and beneficial acts made for the
  common wealth, and yet I mean it since their time that would fain have
  thank without desert. For Our Lord forbid (seeing we have been these
  twenty-eight years your King) that both we and our Council should have
  lost so much time as not to know now better than when we came first to
  our reign, what were the common wealth and what were not. And though
  outrecuidance of some may chance will not let them to acknowledge it
  so, yet I trust and doubt not but the most part of our loving subjects
  (specially those which be not seduced by false reports) do both think
  it, accept it, and find it so. Now, touching the common wealth; what
  King hath kept you all his subjects so long in wealth and peace; so
  long without taking or doing wrong one to the other; so indifferently
  minister[_ed_] justice to all, both high and low; so defended you all
  from outward enemies; so fortified the frontiers of this realm, to his
  no little and in a manner inestimable charges? and all for your
  wealths and sureties. What King hath given among you more general or
  freer pardons? What King hath been loather to punish his subjects, or
  showed more mercy amongst them? These things being so true as no true
  man can deny them, it is an unnatural and unkind demeanour of you our
  subjects to believe or deem the contrary of it, by whose report so
  ever it should be. As touching the beginning of our reign, where ye
  say so many noblemen were councillors; who were then councillors I
  well remember and yet of the temporalty I note none but two worthy
  calling noble; the one Treasurer of England [_the Earl of Surrey,
  Norfolk’s father_], the other High Steward of our house [_the Earl of
  Shrewsbury_]; others, as the Lords Marney and Darcy, but scant well
  born gentlemen; and yet of no great lands till they were promoted by
  us and so made knights and lords; the rest were lawyers and priests,
  save two bishops, which were Canterbury and Winchester. If these then
  be the great number of noblemen that ye speak of and that ye seemed
  then to be content withal, why then now be ye not much better content
  with us, which have now so many nobles in deed both of birth and
  condition? For first of the temporalty, in our Privy Council we have
  the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of Suffolk, the Marquis of Exeter, the
  Lord Steward (when he may come), the Earl of Oxford, the Earl of
  Sussex, the Lord Sandys our Chamberlain, the Lord Admiral Treasurer of
  our House, Sir William Poulet Comptroller of our house: and of the
  spiritualty, the Bishop of Hereford [_Edward Fox_], the Bishop of
  Chichester [_Richard Sampson_], and the Bishop of Winchester [_Stephen
  Gardiner_]. Now how far be ye abused to reckon that then there were
  more noblemen in our Privy Council than now? But yet, though I now do
  declare the truth to pull you from the blindness that you were led in,
  yet we ensure you we would ye knew that it appertaineth nothing to any
  of our subjects to appoint us our Council ne we will take it so at
  your hands. Wherefore henceforth remember better the duties of
  subjects to your King and sovereign lord, and meddle no more of those
  nor such-like things as ye have nothing to do in.

  To the fourth; where ye the commons do name certain of our Council to
  be subverters both of God’s law and the laws of this realm; we do take
  and repute them as just and true executors both of God’s laws and ours
  as far as their commissions under us do extend. And if any of our
  subjects can duly prove the contrary, we shall proceed against them
  and all other offenders therein according to justice, as to our estate
  and dignity royal doth appertain. And in case it be but a false and
  untrue report (as we verily think it is), then it were as meet and
  standeth as well with justice that they should have the self same
  punishment which wrongfully hath objected this to them, that they
  should have had if they deserved it. And one thing amongst others
  maketh me think that this slander should be untrue; because it
  proceedeth from that place which is both so far distant from where
  they inhabit, and also from those people which never heard them preach
  nor yet knoweth any part of their conversation. Wherefore we exhort
  you our commons to be no more so light of credit, neither of ill
  things spoken of your King and sovereign, nor yet of any of his
  prelates and councillors; but to think that your King, having so long
  reigned over you, hath as good discretion to elect and choose his
  councillors as those (whosoever they be) that hath put this in your
  heads.

  Here, in this final point, which ye our commons of Yorkshire do desire
  and also in the matter of the whole, we verily think that the rest of
  our whole commons (whereof ye be in manner but an handful) will
  greatly disdain and not bear it that ye take upon you to set order
  both to them and us, your both sovereign; and that (though ye be
  rebels) ye would make them as bearers and partakers of your mischief;
  willing them to take pardon for insurrections which verily I think and
  doubt not they never minded; but like true subjects to the contrary
  hath, both with heart and deed, been ready at our call to defend both
  us and themself.

  And now for our part; as to your demands, We let you wit that pardon
  of such things as ye demand lieth only in the will and pleasure of the
  prince; but it seemeth by your lewd proclamations and safeconducts
  that there be amongst you which take upon them both the King’s and
  councillor’s parts, which neither yet by us nor by consent of the
  realm hath been admitted to any such room. What arrogancy then is in
  those wretches (being also of none experience) to presume to raise you
  our subjects without commission or authority, yea, and against us,
  under a cloaked colour of your wealth and in our name; and as the
  success will declare, (we being no more merciful than ye yet hitherto
  deserve) to your utter confusions? Wherefore we let you wit, ye our
  subjects of Yorkshire, that were it not that our princely heart cannot
  reckon this your shameful insurrection and unnatural rebellion to be
  done of malice or rancour, but rather by a lightness given in a manner
  by a naughty nature to a commonalty and a wondrous sudden surreption
  of gentlemen; we must needs have executed another manner of punishment
  than (ye humbly knowledging your fault and submitting yourselves to
  our mercy) we intend to do. And to the intent that ye shall all know
  that our princely heart rather embraceth (of his own disposition) pity
  and compassion of his offending subjects than will to be revenged of
  their naughty deeds; we are contented, if we may see and perceive in
  you all a sorrowfulness for your offences and will henceforth to do no
  more so, nor to believe so lewd and naughty tales or reports of your
  most kind and loving prince and his Council, to grant unto you all our
  letters patent of pardon for this rebellion; so that ye will deliver
  unto us ten such of the ringleaders and provokers of you in this
  rebellion, as we shall assign to you and appoint. Now note the
  benignity of your prince. Now note how easily ye may have pardon, both
  gentlemen and other if ye list. Now note how effusion of blood may be
  eschewed. Now note, what this little while of your rebellion hath
  hindered yourselves and country. Now learn by a little lack to eschew
  a worse. Now learn, by this small warning, to keep you true men. Thus
  I, as your head, pray for you my members, that God may light you with
  his Grace to knowledge and declare yourselves our true subjects
  henceforth, and to give more credence to these our benign persuasions
  than to the perverse instigations of maliciously disposed
  persons.”[1280]

Although the tone of this document was on the whole milder than that of
the reply to the Lincolnshire rebels, it must have caused dismay to
Norfolk, who knew that the Pilgrims would regard it as a declaration of
war. It contained no answer to any of their grievances, except the
statement that the King was entirely right, and they were entirely
wrong. The only hint of conciliation was the promise that if any members
of the Council could be proved to be subverters of the laws, they should
be punished, and this was qualified by the King’s certainty that no one
could prove anything of the sort. Even the promised pardon was not
general. Norfolk must have learnt enough of the Pilgrims’ feelings to
know that they would never accept this answer, and they were in a
position to attack Suffolk almost as soon as it was received, for their
musters were made on the spot, while the King’s troops had to be
conveyed there from a distance. Yet for the moment there seemed to be no
way in which the answer might be altered. The Council did not dare
openly to criticise the King’s own composition, and on the morning of
Sunday 5 November, Bowes and Ellerker set out from Windsor with the
King’s reply, which they themselves do not seem to have read. But at
noon a message was sent to Cromwell commanding him to stop them until
the King had consulted his Council again[1281]. Such news had been
received from the north that Fitzwilliam wrote that the ambassadors must
be stopped in London. If they had started, a post must be sent after
them[1282].

The particular report which had just arrived has not been preserved, but
its contents at last convinced the King that the time was not yet ripe
for his answer. He must temporise, not threaten. The same news which
made him realise this gave him an excuse for delay. It was possible to
declare that the Pilgrims had broken the truce, and that the King
therefore refused to negotiate with them[1283]. A message which Aske had
sent to Sir Marmaduke Constable was one of these alleged breaches[1284].
It was also said that Leonard Beckwith had been attacked. He was a
receiver of the suppressed abbeys’ goods and therefore very unpopular.
His house was plundered by William Acclom and sixty commons, and his
mother put in such fear that she was ill for the next seven months; but
this had happened before the truce[1285]. The King also complained that
Aske had sent letters into Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire[1286].
These were the letters which announced the truce and ordered the rebels
to disband. On these pretexts Bowes and Ellerker were detained and the
King embarked on a new policy.

It must be placed to the credit of Henry’s honesty, if not of his
generalship, that he was unwilling to drop force and resort to
treachery, as Norfolk advised. From the time of the first outbreak in
Lincolnshire the King had been urging his lieutenants to proceed to
extremities. He frequently ordered them to give battle, and he seems to
have felt no doubt as to the result. It was not by his will that the
outbreak of hostilities had been delayed so long. The revolt might have
been finally crushed by one decisive blow, but on the other hand it was
even more likely that the rebels would have been victorious, and that
the battle which the King desired would have been the opening of a civil
war, the end of which no man could foresee. This may seem too confident
a statement to base on the reports of Norfolk, as their gloomy tone was
partly due to sympathy with the rebels, but there is positive evidence
of the weakness of the royal troops, apart from Norfolk’s letters. In
the first place, the royal forces were never concentrated at one place;
they straggled north in scattered contingents, which could easily have
been cut off in detail. In the second place, the King’s soldiers did not
receive regular and sufficient pay. In the third place, the Duke of
Suffolk, whose loyalty was unquestioned, was as unwilling as Norfolk to
risk a battle. Jealousy ran so high among Henry’s nobles that if Suffolk
could safely have made a great show of activity, in contrast to
Norfolk’s hesitation, or could have sent very cheerful reports, in
contrast to Norfolk’s desperate letters, there can be no doubt that he
would have done so, and won the King’s favour. Only the gravity of the
situation can have forced him to support Norfolk.

These facts were obvious to Henry when he was cool enough to observe
them, and accordingly his blustering was temporarily suspended. He was
still absolutely determined that he would make no concessions to the
Pilgrims, but he was forced to resort to temporising and treachery, as
it was impossible for the moment to compel them to submit to his will.
Accordingly he laid his plans anew.

His first object was to delay the northern messengers. All waste of time
was time gained. Hot blood would cool, and anger die down, men would
settle into their ordinary ways, and hopeful spirits would grow
despondent, if time was given them to realise the dangers and
difficulties of civil war. The return of Bowes and Ellerker would be
watched for less and less eagerly every day they tarried, and the King’s
answer, however unfavourable, might find the people readier to submit
than to rise again. The King’s second line of attack was directed
against the very citadel of the Pilgrims’ position—the loyalty of their
leaders. Letters of thanks were sent to all the gentlemen of the north
who had taken the King’s side, and they were encouraged to return to
their own homes, or remain there as the case might be, in order that
they might report the arrangements and movements of the Pilgrims, and
use their influence with the neighbouring gentlemen, often friends and
relatives, to bring them over to the King[1287]. Promises of pardon and
reward, hints at grants of land, perhaps belonging to the very
monasteries they had risen to defend, perhaps the property of men like
Darcy and Constable who would not escape unattainted, doubtless had the
desired effect on some of the gentlemen[1288]. The King might well
anticipate that these methods would bring such disunion into the
Pilgrims’ councils that any concerted action would be rendered
impossible and isolated outbreaks would be the worst that need be
feared.

The Pilgrims from the first did their utmost to guard against the King’s
assault on their weak places. They strove to keep the gentlemen banded
together by frequent councils and constant communication. With the
commons their task was doubly difficult. They must keep unruly members
from spoils and other offences against the truce, and at the same time
encourage the fervent and patriotic spirit which was the mainstay of
their venture. Henry issued sermons and exhortations,—the Pilgrims
replied with poems. John Hallam returned home to Watton after the
disbanding at Pontefract, and brought with him “certain rhymes made
against my lord privy seal, my lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the
Augmentations and divers bishops of the new learning which rhymes had
been sung abroad by minstrels.”[1289] He showed them to Friar John
Pickering, one of the Friars Preachers, who had taken refuge at the
Priory of Bridlington[1290]. Pickering was inspired to write something
better than these clumsy verses to encourage the Pilgrims in the good
cause. With this intention he composed a long poem in the elaborate
Latin style which seems to have been the fashion then in Yorkshire. He
“made the said rhyme by rhyme that the hearers might better bear it
away, but not that it might be sung by minstrels” and he himself showed
it only to a few friends, who all praised it. Nevertheless it soon
spread abroad and “was in every man’s mouth about Bridlington and
Scarborough.” It is difficult to understand how anyone could sing the
verses, for they have none of the rugged charm of the Pilgrims’ marching
song. They are long-winded, involved, and interspersed with scraps of
Latin. The Pilgrims are compared first to the Maccabees, afterwards to
Mordecai, with Cromwell in the character of Hamon:

           “This cruel Hamon by his false invention
           In the north doth perceive the faithfull commonty,
           By his great expenses intending utterly
           Us to destroy and bring in captivity.
           But great God above that ever doth procure
           For his faithful people all that is necessary,
           And even provide I you do ensure
           His falsehood to be known and eke his policy.
           No fair words we shall trust after my opinion
           But boldly go forward in our peregrination.”

The gist of the poem is an exhortation to be loyal to the King, but to
fight to the death against Cromwell[1291].

Thus both parties were working quietly and effectively to improve their
position, and in consequence were constantly accusing each other of
breaches of the truce. It cannot be denied that, however honest their
intentions, the first appointment at Doncaster was not well kept on
either side. The diplomacy of the King and the wildness of the
commons—to say nothing of mutual suspicion—were against it. Considering
all the circumstances it was perhaps as strictly observed as engagements
of the kind ever are.

The presence of Suffolk in Lincolnshire made it absolutely necessary
for the Pilgrims to secure their borders. Norfolk, of course, had no
power to promise the dispersal of Suffolk’s army, even if the rebels
demanded anything so unreasonable; but he had undertaken that the
King’s Lieutenant in Lincolnshire should observe the truce and
threaten no invasion of Yorkshire[1292]. The Pilgrims had stipulated
that none of the prisoners at Lincoln should suffer execution till a
final settlement had been reached, which must have been all they
could do at the time for their unlucky fellows[1293]. But Suffolk,
instead of keeping all his host round Lincoln, where he himself lay,
sent garrisons to Grimsby, Barton and other towns on Trent and
Humber[1294]. These places were fortified, the river traffic was
controlled by their commanders and every effort was made to collect
the boats on their own side. Hull, the most important citadel on the
north of Humber, was known to favour the King, partly because of
Beverley’s devotion to the Pilgrims. Further east, Sir Brian
Hastings lay at Hatfield with his tenants and servants about five
hundred strong, ready to stand to arms at a word[1295]. Even at
Wakefield, right in the rebels’ country, Sir Henry Saville was
bullying and coaxing his neighbours to join the King[1296]. These
formed the King’s first line, pushed right to the frontiers of the
rebels. His second was the line of the Trent. The castles at Newark
and Nottingham were being garrisoned and re-fortified. Shrewsbury
was at his Derbyshire seat, Wingfield, ready to muster all the
country at the first warning from the north, and to hold the bridges
at Derby and Burton-on-Trent[1297]. Nor must it be forgotten that
the Pilgrims had also an enemy at their flank. The Earl of Derby had
orders to be on the alert. He kept nightly watch along the Pilgrims’
borders and ascertained by constant musters the available strength
of Lancashire and Cheshire[1298].

Such were the King’s general defences, the details of which will appear
presently, and it remained for the Pilgrims to make themselves equally
secure. The defence of the Trent was not fully organised until the
middle of November, but the first line was prepared at the beginning of
the truce, and Hull was in some danger of falling by a sudden attack.

The Pilgrims’ strongest line of defence was along the Humber, Ouse and
Aire, and such were its advantages, particularly in the way of scarcity
of bridges, that it could be made almost impassable, if properly
garrisoned with determined troops. But the commons had risen and joined
them through all the country south as far as the Don, Marshland, and the
Isle of Axholme, which lay between the Don and the Trent. In order to
keep this part of the country, they would be obliged to hold the line of
the Trent. The result of this was that the district south of the Ouse
became debatable ground, where each party was constantly complaining of
breaches of the truce.

The first business of the rebel leaders was to stay the “wild” men of
the North Riding. It may be conjectured that the expected arrival of
these rough allies had something to do with the making of the truce, for
all the well-to-do Pilgrims were very shy of the commons who were more
bent on social reform than on religious conservatism. Although Darcy and
the captains were able to disband the forces that were at Pontefract and
Doncaster[1299], it was not to be expected that the remote districts
could be quieted at once. The truce was not acknowledged in Cumberland
until 3 November, as has been described, and then only in part and with
great reluctance[1300]. The monks of Furness were giving money to their
tenants and encouraging them to attend the musters on Hallowmas Eve, 31
October[1301]. On his return from Jervaux to Richmond John Dakyn was
obliged to keep the freest hospitality he could, and distributed seven
nobles among his parishioners, that they might not rob him as they had
done some of the neighbouring clergy[1302].

As time went on the unrest became more marked, but for the moment there
was an uneasy lull, and the leaders of the Pilgrimage began to
strengthen their defences. Orders were given on the 30th that beacons
should be laid and that nightly watch should be kept in the church
towers of the East Riding, where some attempt might be made from
Lincolnshire[1303]. Aske spent the night of Sunday 29 October in York,
declaring the order and staying the country. Next day, Monday 30
October, he turned his attention to the delicate problem of the Earl of
Northumberland’s position, and rode to Wressell Castle. On the way he
heard that Sir Marmaduke Constable, who had been in hiding, had returned
home at the news of the truce, and that the commons were threatening to
plunder his house if he would not take the oath. Aske wrote to Sir
Marmaduke advising him to come to Wressell for protection, but he fled
to Lincolnshire[1304]. This was the message of which the King complained
on 5 November.

The unfortunate Earl of Northumberland, still lying ill at Wressell
Castle, was now besieged by most unwelcome visitors. First came Aske,
“to have agreed him and his brother Sir Thomas Percy.” The Earl refused
to have anything whatever to do with his brothers, but towards Aske his
attitude was on the whole friendly. The commons at Snaith had seized two
coffers of the Earl’s clothes, which had been sent from London. Aske
saved them from destruction and made a bill of the contents, “a gown and
doublet of crimson satin and the rest of small value.” He had sent word
to the Earl that he could have his coffers on sending for them, but he
made Aske a present of them, and now affirmed that if there had been
more Aske should have had it for saving his life from the commons[1305].

Failing in his principal object that day, Aske seems to have returned to
York for the night to take counsel with Sir Thomas. Next day, Tuesday 31
October, Hallowmas Eve, they dined together at St Mary’s Abbey, York,
and then received news of the arrival of William Stapleton, who sent
word to Aske that he was about to ride to Wressell to pay his duty to
the Earl his master, and would be glad to be allowed to ride in Aske’s
company. But Aske and Sir Thomas Percy set off without him, and when
Stapleton reached the Castle Aske was with the Earl, trying in vain to
persuade him to make Sir Thomas lieutenant of one March and Sir Ingram
of the other. Afterwards Stapleton himself visited the Earl, whom he
found in bed “weeping, ever wishing himself out of the world, which the
said William was sore to see.” That night Sir Thomas, Aske and Stapleton
all slept at Wressell.

Next day, Wednesday 1 November, Aske went to the Earl again, and they
came to terms. The Earl, under compulsion, consented to what Aske and
the lords had resolved upon, but he absolutely refused to make any
concessions to his brothers, or even to see Sir Thomas. It may be
imagined that he would not find it easy to face the brother whom he had
disinherited. Stapleton added his persuasions to those of Aske. He
really feared for the Earl’s life, as he had heard the commons say in
the field, “Strike off the head of the Earl and make Sir Thomas earl,”
and Sir Thomas Hilton had exclaimed, “He is now crept into a corner and
dare not show himself, he hath made a many of knaves gentlemen to whom
he has disposed much of his living and all now to do nought himself.”
The Earl’s obstinacy made Stapleton half-angry, but nothing could move
him to see his brother. The Earl was very earnest on behalf of the King
and Cromwell against the commons, and when Stapleton warned him that he
was actually in danger he only replied that “he cared not, he could die
but once, let them strike off his head and rid him of much pain.” The
upshot was that the Earl went to York, leaving Wressell in Aske’s hands.
Aske set out for Hull, Sir Thomas went to Seamer, and Stapleton went
home[1306].

Northumberland found no peace at York, for there he was visited by Sir
Ingram Percy, who had come up to demand seven hundred marks salary as
vice-warden of the East Marches and one hundred marks for the
lieutenancy. His brother consented to see him, but was shocked by the
language he used about Cromwell, “wishing him, being of the King’s most
honourable Council, to be hanged as they and he might look unto; and if
he were there present, as he wished to God he were, he would put his
sword in his belly.”[1307] Northumberland promptly deprived him of the
offices which he had obtained by his trick[1308], and appointed Robert
Lord Ogle vice-warden, and Sir Roger Grey and Sir John Widdrington
lieutenants, all three being of the Carnaby faction[1309]. After this
both Sir Thomas and Sir Ingram set out for the north.

On or about Sunday 5 November, Shrewsbury sent his chaplain John Moreton
to discover the Earl’s state, and to try to obtain payment of her
allowance to his daughter the Countess, as she was now living with him.
The messenger went to Wressell, and was there taken by Aske’s men, who
were holding the castle[1310]. On 10 November Aske visited the Earl
again at Selby[1311]. Now that his brothers were gone he was more
tractable, and made over to Aske his castle of Wressell and his tenants,
for so long as Aske should lie in garrison there, and also his “spice
plate” which was at Watton Priory[1312]. By this formal deed he obtained
power to remove his “evidences” from the castle, and as he was very
anxious about them, he sent two servants, who brought them away at
midnight[1313].

Thus the Pilgrims received Wressell Castle, but before the negotiation
was completed Aske had been busy in a great many other places. After his
interview with Northumberland he rode to Watton, to arrange the affairs
of Watton Priory. The prior, a creature of Cromwell’s, had fled south
with all the money he could lay hands on, leaving “three or four score
brethren and sisters of the same house without forty shillings to
succour them.” They wished to elect a new prior, but Aske persuaded them
to accept the sub-prior as the defaulter’s deputy. This affair of the
Prior of Watton should not be overlooked, for it had a part in bringing
about the final tragedy. Next day Thursday 2 November Aske went on to
Hull[1314].

The Duke of Suffolk had caused considerable alarm to the Pilgrims by
occupying Grimsby and the neighbouring country[1315] in force as soon as
the truce was made. They considered that this was “contrary to the
appointment,”[1316] although of course the agreement did not include
Suffolk. Aske made Sir Robert Constable governor of Hull, and under his
directions the walls were put in a state of defence and a garrison of
two hundred soldiers was maintained there[1317]. Shipping was also
prepared, which alarmed the royalists in their turn. They thought that
the rebels’ object must be either to escape by sea, or to send for
powder and ordnance from abroad, and watch was kept to prevent
communications with Flanders; but as a matter of fact the preparations
were made partly in fear of an attack on Hull by sea, and partly to
intercept any succour which might be sent to Scarborough or
Berwick[1318].

The Pilgrims employed various methods to obtain the money needed for
their garrisons. Sir Robert Constable paid most of the expenses of Hull;
he “borrowed” the money, perhaps rather vigorously, from John Lambart,
who tried unsuccessfully to recover £165. 8_s_. 3_d_. from Sir Robert’s
brother Sir William Constable[1319]. Lambart had however received
sufficient security from Sir Robert[1320]. Dr Holdsworth the vicar of
Halifax had fled to his patron Sir Henry Saville. His goods were
confiscated and £10 of the money went to the defence of Hull[1321]. The
collector of customs attempted to fly to the King with three hundred
marks in his possession, but Sir Robert Constable seized him and swore
that that money should be spent first[1322]. The lead of Marton Priory,
which had already been removed from the building, was seized by the
rebels and assigned to Edmund (?) Copendale for sale. He paid over to
Aske for it in all £9. 13_s._ 4_d._[1323] Aske also obtained on 10
November the Earl of Northumberland’s sign manual to use his “spice
plate” lying at Watton Priory, for the purposes of the rebellion. The
Prior of Ellerton was now in charge of the house during the absence of
the Prior of Watton[1324], and on the first summons refused to give the
plate up. Aske wrote again severely, saying that “it is pity to do
anything for that house that so unkindly orders me, who have done more
for religion than they can ever deserve,” and threatened that if he
complained of the prior’s conduct to the commons the house would be
plundered[1325]. Alarmed by this, the prior took the plate to Aske
himself, and the convent of Watton received Aske’s thanks four days
later[1326]. Some money may have been obtained by plundering the houses
of those who had fled to the King, but this was a very uncertain source
of revenue, as the plunder was usually divided among the spoilers who
carried out the work. Finally gifts were received from well-wishers,
particularly from the monasteries[1327].

In this connection may be mentioned the curious story of Harry Osborne
of Gloucester. He was serving with his father in the King’s army under
Sir Charles Trowen, and obtained leave “to go among the northern host to
know the fashion of them.” When he came back he seems to have drawn
freely upon his imagination; parts of his story are obviously untrue,
and the rest is very suspicious. He asserted in the first place that
Lord Stafford had joined the rebels with one thousand men[1328]. This
was not true, but it seems to have been widely rumoured. Wilfred Holme
thus enumerated the allies on whom the rebels depended:

     “They noised the Emperor with them was participate,
     And the Bishop of Rome with the Scottish king commixed,
     With them to commilitare they were clearly fundate,
     And Ireland and Wales of their part was fixed,
     The Earl of Derby outlawed, and of their part mixed,
     And the Duke of Norfolk every cause accounted,
     All commoners commoned with the Earl Staffort enixed,
     And as for they of Lincolnshire a great sum surmounted.”[1329]

Speed gives a list of the lords who were present at the second
appointment at Doncaster, among whom is Lord Streffre, which may stand
for Lord Stafford. All the names in this list are wildly misprinted,
e.g. Romemer for Bulmer and Clayer for Ellerker[1330]. Osborne also said
that “Lady Rysse,” i.e. Katherine Howard widow of Rice (Richard) ap
Griffith had joined them with three thousand men and had brought half a
cartload of plate, which was being coined for their use. Osborne
produced a groat which he asserted to be of their coinage, “and it is a
fay (true?) king Harry groat.” This story had an air of probability, for
Richard ap Griffith had been executed for treason in 1531, and his widow
might very well sympathise with the rebels[1331]. Also they would have
no difficulty in coining money, as there were mints at York and Durham,
and Hastings reported on 8 November that the rebels had made posts from
Hull by Templehurst, York and Durham to Newcastle “to prepare new
money.”[1332] These posts are mentioned again on 13 November[1333]. But
as nothing more is ever heard of “Lady Rysse” and her groats they may
have only existed in the vigorous imagination of Harry Osborne.

Darcy depended for money on a cess regularly levied on the parishes. He
set to work to collect one as soon as the truce was proclaimed, and it
is a sign of the commons’ earnestness that they assisted in gathering
it. Sir Henry Saville seized the collectors at Dewsbury and forced them
to give up the money under pain of hanging as traitors, conduct which
caused much indignation among the Pilgrims[1334].

Meanwhile Aske left Hull for Wressell Castle, which he made his
headquarters, before Monday 6 November[1335]. On that day Suffolk wrote
to the Mayor of Hull requiring him to deliver up Antony Curtis, William
his servant, Robert Horncliff and Christopher Blaunde, who were lying in
prison in the town. The mayor and Sir Robert Constable refused to give
them up without a special order from the grand captain, who cannot
therefore have been in Hull that day[1336]. Curtis and Horncliff were
two of the messengers who had been sent by the Lincolnshire rebels to
Beverley. They had been cast into prison as liars on bringing news of
the failure of Lincolnshire[1337]. When this proved true they must have
been detained in revenge for the betrayal of Woodmancy who seems to have
been given up to Suffolk by the Lincolnshire men; for Morland, on flying
to Yorkshire, was driven out of Beverley because the magistrates said,
“Ye are worthy to have no favour here, nor ye may not tarry here, for
our messenger called Woodmancy, whom we sent into Lincolnshire, hath
been ill-entreated with you there and was cast into prison[1338].” On
Tuesday 7 November Suffolk sent the Mayor’s refusal to the King, with
the incorrect assertion that it came from Aske[1339]. On or before
Sunday 12 November, Horncliff and Curtis “brake the prison” and threw
themselves on the mercy of Sir Anthony Browne[1340] at Barton[1341]. He
sent them on to Suffolk at Lincoln, when they found that they had
escaped out of the frying-pan into the fire[1342]. A spy of Sir Francis
Brian’s reported that these two were said to have been “the beginners of
the mischief” and that Aske himself had told him that they “were the
first that sware him in Lincolnshire,” and afterwards raised
Yorkshire[1343]. After this information they were practically dead men,
and Suffolk at once petitioned the King that their property might be
bestowed on his own kinsmen[1344]. Yet even Suffolk seems to have
realised that the accusation was probably false, for Aske always said,
in authentic documents, that Hudswell first gave him the oath[1345].
Nevertheless, Suffolk considered the story good enough to hang Curtis,
and he repeated it to him. Curtis was so indignant at the accusation
that he offered to go and kill Aske, although he was his kinsman.
Suffolk had the assassination of Aske a good deal at heart just then (20
November), but he seems to have suspected that Curtis’ wrath was merely
an excuse for escaping back to the Pilgrims. At any rate he did not
accept the offer, though he reported it to the King. He also sent up
Curtis’ confession, but unfortunately it has not been preserved[1346].

Such was the position at the seat of war from Friday 27 October until
Sunday 5 November. Although Henry had resolved to suspend his answer to
the Pilgrims’ petition, Bowes and Ellerker were allowed to send a letter
to Pontefract by their servants. They described the progress of their
embassy and gave the reason for the delay in their return. Several
copies of this letter were sent for distribution among the northern
gentlemen, in order to test their temper towards the King. The servants
set out from Windsor for the north on Tuesday 7 November[1347]. At the
same time the King was preparing a swifter means of ending his
difficulty.

On Tuesday the Duke of Norfolk sent for Percival Cresswell, a servant of
Lord Hussey, and ordered him to prepare to ride north. Next day Hussey
directed Cresswell to write in his (Hussey’s) name a certain letter to
Lord Darcy and to show it to the Council. After the Council had approved
of the letter Lord Hussey signed it, and Cresswell took it back to
Norfolk and the Bishop of Hereford. They sealed it up and gave it to him
with another letter from Norfolk to Darcy and also certain instructions
by word of mouth. His further orders were to ride post after the
servants of Bowes and Ellerker, and to pass through the rebels with
them: if he did not do this he must obtain a safeconduct, for on no
account must the letters be taken by the commons.

Cresswell reached Doncaster before the servants and sent to Darcy for a
safeconduct, but before it came the other messengers arrived, and they
all went on towards Templehurst. One of Lord Darcy’s servants met them
and they arrived there on Friday 10 November. Darcy was in the garden
with about half-a-dozen of the commons and his servants. Cresswell paid
his respects to him, saying aloud that he trusted all should be well,
and secretly that he brought a private message from Norfolk and the
King. Darcy led him into the house, and on the way Cresswell managed to
pass the letters into his hands unobserved. Darcy went into an inner
room to read them, leaving Cresswell among the commons in an outer
chamber. They began to abuse Cromwell, and asked Cresswell whether he
had been dismissed from the King’s Council. Cresswell answered that he
had not seen Cromwell at court for the last two days, and that the
principal noblemen about the King were Norfolk, Oxford, Sussex,
Fitzwilliam, Paulet, and Kingston. Thereupon the commons exclaimed, “God
save the King and them all! for as long as such noblemen of the true
noble blood may reign and rule about the King all shall be well.” They
discussed the question of Cromwell’s dismissal a little longer, and then
told Cresswell that whatever answer Darcy and the gentlemen might make,
“If ye speak with the King’s highness ye shall show him, or else ye
shall show my lord’s Grace your master and other the foresaid true
noblemen of the Council, that if the King’s Grace do not send and grant
unto us our petitions, which we sent unto his Highness by the Duke’s
Grace your master, whatsoever letter, bill or pardon shall be sent on to
us we will not accept or receive the same, but send it to his Highness
again.” Cresswell remonstrated with them, but they replied, “if ye be a
true man ye will report the same, for that thing that moves us to this
is the faith we bear unto God, to the King’s person, and all his true
noble blood and the commonwealth.”[1348]

Meanwhile Darcy had read the letters and had sent a messenger to summon
Aske[1349], who was at Selby that day[1350]. The letter to Darcy from
Norfolk was dated 6 November. It informed him that the King had written
answers to the articles “which be of such sort that in mine opinion
there is nothing to be amended therein.” Norfolk went on to complain of
the breaches of the truce. He then dropped into a confidential
vein,—people were saying unpleasant things about Darcy,—it was whispered
that he might have defended Pontefract longer,—that he was in an
agreement with Aske. Norfolk defended him as well as he could, and
always maintained, like a true friend, that Darcy had been constrained
by force; but what a splendid disproof of all these slanders it would be
if Darcy should capture Aske and send him up to Windsor “dead or alive,
but alive if possible, which will extinct the ill bruit and raise you in
the favour of his Highness.”[1351] Hussey’s letter was dated 7 November
and was much shorter. He had been in great trouble and danger, he said,
partly because he was accused of being Darcy’s confederate. The Duke of
Norfolk had delivered him, and now said that he would also befriend
Darcy if he would send up Aske “quick or dead.” Hussey therefore begged
him to accomplish the King’s pleasure[1352].

After reading these letters, Darcy sent for Cresswell. There were
several other gentlemen in the room, who were not very willing that
Darcy should speak to the messenger apart, but he promised to tell them
all that passed. Then he bade Cresswell declare his credence. Cresswell
replied that it was the same as the letters, in that Darcy would win the
King’s confidence and a great reward if he sent up Aske. Darcy’s answer
is rather refreshing reading: “I cannot do it in no wise, for I have
made promise to the contrary, and my coat was never hitherto stained
with any such blot. And my lord’s Grace your master knoweth well enough
what a nobleman’s promise is, and therefore I think that this thing
cometh not of his Grace’s device, nor of none other nobleman, and if I
might have two dukedoms for my labour I would not consent to have such a
spot in my coat.” Darcy evidently suspected that Norfolk’s message was
inspired by Cromwell, as Hussey’s letter undoubtedly had been. He did
not realise what a nobleman “of the true noble blood” was capable of
doing. Cresswell had nothing to say in reply, and they all went to
dinner. During the meal Aske arrived, and after dinner the captains of
the Pilgrimage held a council. On Saturday 11 November, after mass,
Darcy sent for Cresswell, and bade him tell the King that Darcy was now
doing him better service than he had ever done. As for Pontefract
Castle, he called the Archbishop and Archdeacon Magnus to witness that
there was neither powder, ordnance nor artillery in it, that the King
sent no reply to his letters, and that he had used all means to defend
it while he could. He begged the King to excuse him if he and the other
gentlemen “spake somewhat largely” against Cromwell, as that pleased the
commons best. To Hussey, Darcy sent no letter, but he bade Cresswell to
“have him recommended to him,” and to say that he was sorry for his
trouble[1353].

On Saturday at six o’clock in the evening Cresswell set out for Windsor
with letters from Darcy to Norfolk and to the ambassadors, and Aske’s
explanation of the alleged breaches of the truce. The captain stated
that he wrote to Sir Marmaduke Constable in Lancashire and Sir Thomas
Wharton in Westmorland only for their own protection. His other letters
were to stay the country. As for spoils, if there had been any since the
truce he was willing to make restitution, but he doubted if they could
be proved[1354]. Darcy’s letters are highly characteristic. To Bowes and
Ellerker he wrote that their delay was a far greater violation of the
agreement than anything that had happened in the north, and that their
letter was “taken but for a persuasion.” If they would bring back the
King’s answer themselves, it would do more good than twenty
letters[1355]. To Norfolk he expressed his joy that the King had been
graciously pleased to answer the articles in person. He denied that the
truce had been broken; on the contrary, he and the other gentlemen had
stayed Lancashire, Cumberland and Westmorland, although those counties
were not included in the appointment at Doncaster, because it was not
then known that they had risen. As for his surrender of Pontefract, he
had declared the whole circumstances to Cresswell, and again protested
his loyalty and his ill-treatment. Coming to the most important part of
the letter, the suggested capture of Aske, Darcy was as emphatic as he
had been to Cresswell. He was ready to serve the King as a scullion
“without a penny rent from his lands” but “alas, my good lord that ever
ye being a man of so much honour and great experience should advise or
choose me a man to be of any such sort or fashion to betray or disserve
any living man, Frenchman, Scot, yea, or a Turk; of my faith, to get and
win to me and mine heirs four of the best duke’s lands in France, or to
be king there, I would not do it to no living person.” Finally he
declared “roundly and truly” that there would be no satisfactory “stay”
until Bowes and Ellerker were sent back with the King’s full answer, and
in particular the promise of a free parliament and a full pardon, for
their letters were looked upon as mere persuasions[1356]. In writing
this letter Darcy, as perhaps he knew, signed his own death warrant. No
past service, no future pardon, could protect a man who so boldly
exalted his own honour above the King’s pleasure.

After making his reply, Aske returned to Wressell Castle and sent out a
summons to all the gentlemen and leaders of the Pilgrimage to attend a
general council at York on Tuesday 21 November[1357]. It was hoped that
the messengers would have returned from London by that time; if they had
not, their letter would be shown and further steps would have to be
taken to bring the King to terms[1358]. No sooner had Aske and Darcy
disposed of one set of accusations than another sprang up. On Wednesday
8 November, the day that Cresswell left London, Sir Brian Hastings wrote
to tell Suffolk of a rumour that Darcy was about to march on Doncaster,
while Aske and Constable would transport the men of the East Riding,
Howden and Marshland by water to Gainsborough and Stockwith, and both
hosts would meet at Lincoln, where they intended to capture the weapons
collected there by Suffolk[1359]. On the same day Suffolk sent a force
from Lincoln to occupy Newark, led by Richard Cromwell, Sir John Russell
and Sir Francis Brian[1360]. This however was not in consequence of
Hastings’ report, for on Thursday 9 November Hastings received two
letters from Suffolk asking for news of the rebels. Hastings wrote back
the same day, referring to his earlier letter. He mentioned the arrival
of Percival Cresswell at Doncaster, and declared that if he had two guns
and ordnance he could keep the bridges there with his own men. He did
not think that the occupation of Newark was necessary, but there was
danger in north Lincolnshire. The rest of the letter was taken up with
his private grievances against Sir Arthur Darcy[1361]. Meanwhile he was
furthering the King’s cause in another way by acting as go-between from
the Earl of Shrewsbury to Sir George Darcy[1362]. Lord Darcy’s sons had
no sympathy with their father’s views. Sir George had joined the commons
only on compulsion, and was now eager to obtain a pardon and make his
peace with the King.

Henry seems to have calculated a good deal on the effect that the
letters sent by Cresswell would have. If Darcy should kill or capture
Aske, there would certainly be another rising; leaderless and
disorganised by treachery, it would be easily suppressed. The King
therefore laid plans to deal with the situation which he hoped to
produce. Shrewsbury’s son Lord Talbot returned from court to Wingfield
on Thursday 9 November, bearing instructions that if the commons rose
again, Shrewsbury must advance to Derby and there hold the bridges. The
old Earl seems to have been quite tired of the whole business. He wrote
back that the water at Derby and the Trent four miles away at
Burton-on-Trent could not be held, there were so many fords and bridges,
and it would take ten thousand men or more to hold the Trent between
Newark and Burton. The rest of his letter contained better news for the
King; he mentioned the rumour that Darcy would seize Doncaster, which
gave an excuse for further delay of the messengers, and enclosed a
letter, which if revealed would endanger the life of the
sender,—probably one from Sir George Darcy[1363]. At the same time
Shrewsbury wrote to Cromwell begging to be excused from the chief
command on account of his age and feebleness[1364]. Of course the King
would not excuse Shrewsbury[1365]; his age, his great reputation, and
his well-known devotion to the Church of Rome made him too valuable to
be spared.

Letters were sent on the 9th and 10th to the Earl of Derby and the
gentlemen of Cheshire and Lancashire, warning them to be ready to join
Shrewsbury at an hour’s notice[1366]. At the same time orders were sent
to the Earl of Rutland to occupy Nottingham, and he wrote to the King
that he had done so on Friday 10 November. His report was little more
encouraging than Shrewsbury’s. He had provisioned the castle and
inspected the river, but there were four bridges and nine fords. It
would require a great force to defend the castle and so much of the
river, but lying there was very chargeable. He had little money of his
own, as his rents from Yorkshire were stopped, and of the £500 that
Norfolk had sent him only £300 remained. The rest had been spent on
bringing up gunners, on posts and on fortifying the fords at Doncaster.
Moreover he had “no great experience in the war” and begged that some
expert man might be sent to help him[1367].

The news of these movements on the part of the royal troops shortly
reached the headquarters of the rebels. Roger Ratcliff was with Rutland
at Nottingham on Thursday 9 November. He was sent with letters from
Rutland to Derby, and returned with fresh letters from Derby to
Fitzwilliam, but as he passed through Wakefield he was captured by
Grice, who set him naked in the stocks and read his letters. News of
this reached Nottingham and was sent on Saturday 11 November in a letter
to one of Derby’s servants, which was also intercepted[1368].

The King now issued the proclamation and reply to the rebels which he
had drawn up as early as 2 November before seeing their articles[1369].
This is the most probable explanation of a letter from the Council dated
11 November, which notified that the King had pardoned all the rebels of
Yorkshire except ten, and that the proclamation of this, with the King’s
answer to the rebels’ demands, was to be read in all market-towns[1370].
Although the date of this letter is Saturday 11 November, it must really
have been issued earlier, for it was received that day at
Nottingham[1371], and what is more extraordinary at Skipton, where
Christopher Aske read it in Skipton market-place, to the great
indignation of the commons[1372].

All these proceedings on the King’s part show that he believed the
rising in Yorkshire to have collapsed as that in Lincolnshire had done.
He expected that by this time most of the commons would have gone
quietly home again and that the gentlemen would be ready and anxious to
make their peace. Only a few of the wilder spirits were still holding
out, and they could easily be dealt with, particularly if Darcy, as he
expected, captured or killed Aske. By acting on these assumptions Henry
nearly precipitated an outbreak. The commons were by no means pacified;
on the contrary they were with difficulty induced by the gentlemen to
observe the truce. The gentlemen realised that it was too late for
submission and that their only chance of safety lay in treating with the
King on equal terms. Finally Darcy indignantly rejected the suggestion
that he should betray Aske. Henry’s manœuvres set the whole of the north
simmering with irritation. Suffolk and the royal generals were very much
offended that messengers had been sent direct to the rebels, instead of
communicating first with themselves[1373]. Rutland, Shrewsbury and Derby
were grumbling at being ordered to carry out expensive operations
without money[1374]. Newark proved as difficult to defend as Nottingham
and Derby[1375]. Among the rebels the utmost suspicion was aroused by
the delay in the return of Bowes and Ellerker, by the vagueness of their
letter, and by the King’s proclamation, which seemed to throw back the
negotiations to the very beginning again. Darcy had his own reasons for
believing that the King did not intend to come to terms, and the
movements of the royal troops caused great uneasiness.

The result of all this was an alarm which took place on the night of
Saturday 11 November. Men “in white coats” (the royal uniform) were
observed mustering secretly in a wood near Snaith. When Darcy was
informed of this he wrote to warn the honour of Pontefract[1376].
Beacons were burned and the whole countryside rose[1377]. It was said
that Fitzwilliam had come “up the water to Thorne” with five thousand
men, and that he and Hastings intended to capture Darcy[1378]. To Darcy
this seemed the natural result of his reply to Norfolk’s letter. He
threatened that if Hastings burnt his house at Snaith he would “light
him with a candle to all the houses he had,” and prepared to go himself
to encounter the royal troops. His servant William Talbot saw him take
off his cap, saying that he set more by the King of Heaven than by
twenty kings, and though he might not ride he could go where he would if
he had a horse litter, and “the highest hill he could find there would
he be”; they might shoot at him as much as they pleased, for he would
kneel by his litter and say a prayer that would preserve both him and
all his servants. Then he caught Talbot “by the head and wrestled with
him and cast him down and swore by the (_illegible_) he waxed more cant
than he was of many day before.”[1379] In short Darcy was in high
spirits at the prospect of a fight at last. The alarm however was
quickly appeased. Hastings declared that he had only summoned his
neighbours because he heard that the rebels were going to raid his
cattle, as they had done before. The same night and next day letters
were despatched to Suffolk explaining the commotion and assuring him
that it was pacified[1380].

Nevertheless Darcy had many grounds for anxiety. Sir George Darcy’s
negotiations with Hastings and Shrewsbury, in which Sir Arthur Darcy and
William Maunsell, the vicar of Brayton’s brother, had also taken part,
were discovered by an intercepted letter, and the commons brought both
the letter and Sir George to his father[1381]. Darcy must also have
known that it was more than probable that his assassination had been
proposed as a test of loyalty to some other rebel, as Aske’s had been to
him. On Sunday 12 November he wrote to Shrewsbury, his old friend, in
whom he placed more confidence than in any of the other royalists[1382].
The letter was sent by his servant Thomas Wentworth, who was instructed
to show openly a copy of the letter from Bowes and Ellerker, and to
Shrewsbury alone a copy of Darcy’s answer to Norfolk’s letter, “which
answer recites the effect of the whole letter, else I would have sent
both.” The other contents of the letter fall naturally into three parts.
First and most important, would Suffolk observe the truce or would he
not? Must the leaders of the Pilgrimage be constantly prepared for a
surprise attack, for capture or for assassination? Or would he lie quiet
until Bowes and Ellerker returned? On this point Darcy earnestly begged
that he might be told the whole truth.

In the second place Darcy assured Shrewsbury that there could be no
permanent settlement until the messengers returned from the King with a
definite answer, and he begged him to use his influence to bring that
about.

In the third place Darcy set forth his own grievances, for the Pilgrims
also had plenty of complaints to make about breaches of the truce. Sir
Henry Saville had prevented the levying of cesses, and now proposed to
go to the King[1383]. Sir Brian Hastings had caused the alarm the day
before; he was persuading gentlemen to forsake the commons, and had
arrested a load of corn at Doncaster[1384]. The Duke of Suffolk had sent
a herald with messages and had demanded prisoners from Hull[1385]. He
had also stopped the Duke of Norfolk’s servant and was making
threatening movements[1386]. Finally it was a great breach of the truce
that Bowes and Ellerker had not returned; the commons were very wild,
particularly in Cumberland, which was not really included in the
appointment; the gentlemen were doing their very best to stay
them[1387].

Shrewsbury replied to this letter on Monday 13 November. He assured
Darcy that the truce was being strictly observed by the royal troops,
and that Bowes and Ellerker would return shortly. Hastings had acted
only in self-defence, and if Saville had offended he should make
restitution. According to the terms of the truce all prisoners were to
be released; he for his part had sent back those that he had taken, and
he thought that Suffolk might fairly demand his. He concluded by
thanking Darcy for staying the commons[1388]. After Darcy’s servant had
returned, Shrewsbury received from Sir Brian Hastings his account of the
disturbance on Saturday night, and the capture of Sir George Darcy’s
letter[1389]. In other respects Hastings reported that the rebels were
“more gentle,” and that when they had examined a man and found nothing
against him they gave him “certain articles” which contained the oath to
be true to the King, his issue and the commonwealth, for the reformation
of heresies, the restoration of abbeys, the punishment of the subverters
of the law, and the re-appointment of noblemen to rule under the
King[1390]. Shrewsbury sent on all these documents and his own replies
to the King on Tuesday 14 November, at the same time expressing his
anxiety as to the fate of Sir George Darcy, and his hope that the King
would be satisfied with his answer to Darcy, as he had “not been
accustomed to make answer in any such causes.”[1391] This was as far as
Shrewsbury, who was an honourable man, dared go in condemnation of the
King’s plot against Aske.

The alarm at Pontefract was only the beginning of further disturbances.
On Sunday 12 November there was an attempt to provoke a rising at
Beverley[1392]. On Thursday 16 November there were rumours of riots and
deer-slaying at Rawcliffe, Goole and Howden, and it was also said that
Scarborough was again besieged[1393]. The Earl of Derby heard on Monday
the 13th that Dent and Sedbergh were stirring again[1394], and shortly
afterwards there was a report in London that he had been attacked by his
own men, who were mutinous for want of pay[1395]. The Percys had
proclaimed the truce in Northumberland for twenty days, as soon as they
arrived there, at a county meeting which they summoned at Rothbury. But
they continued to plunder and hunt down the Carnabys; and the thieves of
Tynedale, especially little John Heron, were with Sir Thomas “as
familiar as they had been his own household servants.” Sir Thomas “took
upon him as lieutenant,” and even tried to hold the warden court with
the Scots wardens, but they suspected his authority and refused to meet
him[1396].

In Cumberland a muster was held on Wednesday 15 November at the summons
of Richard Dacre, who “took upon him to be grand captain of all
Cumberland,” and appointed as petty captains Christopher Lee a servant
of Dacre, William Pater and Alexander Appleby[1397]. The commons of
Westmorland wrote to Lord Darcy on the same day. They explained that
they would admit no gentlemen to their council, as they were afraid of
them, but they “had more trust in Darcy than any other” and they laid
their grievances before him[1398]. The questions raised by this list of
grievances will be considered later. The point at present is that
Cumberland and Westmorland were preparing to rise again.

Meanwhile the royalists in Lincolnshire received some slight
encouragement. Gonson, who was lying with the royal forces at Grimsby,
sent out a “crayer” on 11 November, which captured two other “crayers,”
coming the one from York and the other from Hull, but as they were
harmlessly laden with salt they were set free on the 17th[1399]. By
means of a pursuivant communications were established with Hull on
Wednesday 15 November, and the King’s officers were able to buy wine and
sugar there[1400]. More important still was the fact that two gentlemen
of Marshland had contrived to convey professions of their loyalty to
John Cavendish at Burton; but as that part of the country was greatly
under Darcy’s influence, and as the commons were very suspicious, the
negotiations proceeded but slowly[1401].

The whole situation is best represented in the report which Thomas
Treheyron, Somerset herald, drew up of two interviews which he had with
Darcy on Tuesday 14 November. He had been sent to Templehurst by
Suffolk, nominally to inquire into the alarm of Martinmas day, but
actually to see what news he could pick up. His account is as follows:

  “The effect of the comynicacon betwene Thomas lord Darcy and Thomas
  Treheyron[1402] otherwyse called Somerset herauld of arms and his
  seyng etc.

  Apon Monday the xiii day of november Charles duc of Suffolk the kynges
  lieu tenante in the countie of Lyncoln commanded Somerset the kynges
  herauld of armes to goo from lyncoln in to the north to the lord
  Darcy. And on tweysday the xiiii day he aryved at templehurst a goodly
  place of the lord Darcys stondyng nygh the Ryver of ayre in the
  countie of York. And at his comyng thyther, he was honorable reseyved
  by the lordes offecers, and they brought hym through the hall in to a
  fayre parler and Immedyatly that he was in the parlor the lord Darcy
  sente one of his servants to hym prayng hym to take the payne to come
  to the chamber to the lord his master and he went with hym were the
  lord Darcy was; and whan he sawe hym he welcomed hym with his cappe
  off and toke hym by the hande sayng Sir I thinkke ye have brought me
  sum newys from the kyng our soverayn lord, and the herauld answered
  that he came not from the Kyng but from the duc of suffolk lord lieu
  tenante of the Kynges armye in the countie of lyncoln with certayn
  messages from his Grace to [your _crossed out_] his [_written over
  it_] lordshipe. than sayd the lord Darcy my felowe herauld I pray you
  shewe me your messages  sir sayd the herauld with a good wyll.

  The herauld.  Sir my lord undrestondeth that apon Saterday last paste
  a great nomber of the Kynges peple ded aryse abowght Pomfryte and this
  partyes and sette bekyns on fyer. Sir his grace merueleth what they do
  meane in so doyng, seyng that the entreate that was made betwene the
  Duc of Norfolk, the erll of Shreysbury yow and other at Doncastre is
  not it [_sic_, _probably_ yet] ended. Were-fore he desyeryth yow to
  cause them to be in peax, and if they will not, his grace muste nedes
  of necessite provyde for them of his parte, Whych he wold be vayrey
  lothe to doo.

  The lord Darcy.  my felowe herauld, my lord of Suffolk hath don lyke a
  wyse prynce to send yow to me for this cause and I wyll Informe yow of
  all the truyth thereof. it is true that on Saturday last paste, my
  cossyn sir bryan hastynges sent XX of his men abowght his affayres to
  a howse that he has on the other syde of the watter of don, and
  beffore that tyme it was bruted amonges the comens, that he wold come
  over the water in to this parties to th’ entent to take the goods of
  the Inhabitance here In satisfacion for spollyngs and robyries don to
  hym beffore that tyme, and after this Rumor [went? _word obliterated_]
  amonges the peple, a folyshe woman perseyvyng his servantes in whyte
  cotes nygh on to the water thinking verely they wold have come Indede,
  to have Robbed them as it was beffore spokyn, Cryed owt alarum. and
  other heryng this crye gyvyng therto to [_too_] lyght credens aryse,
  and sett certayn bekins on fyer. but as sone as I hard thereof what
  with love and fayre wordes I caused them to go home to ther howses in
  peax and sythenz they haue ben all in peax, and to th’ entent that ye
  may perseyve that this is true that I have sweed [_shewed?_] yow see
  here a letter that my cossyn sir bryan hastynges sente to me, and by
  that ye may perseyue the truyth[1403]. and he toke the letter and rede
  it and the tenor thereof agreed with the wordes of the lord Darcy.

  The lord Darcy.  my felowe nowe wyll I demand a questyon of yow, and
  if your comyssion be so large I pray yow answere thereto beffore this
  gentellman my cossyn and other that be here Sir it is comenly spokyn
  amongest us that my lord of Suffolk is mynded to lay sege beffore the
  town of hull and if he so do he shuld not do well as I think for it is
  within our compossision What his grace plisure is therin I pray ye
  swee us.

  The herauld.  Sir by the fethe of a herauld my lord of Suffolk neuer
  mynded to ley any sege to hull, ne to breke any poynte of the
  compossicion made betwene the lordes and yow at Doncastre, nor hath
  not stoped any of the passages, but suffreth every man as well on our
  parties as of this to come [_and_] go with vytalle and to do any other
  thinges at ther plesures, without any agen sayng of any man; but Sir I
  am sure that suche speche cometh by cause that part of our armye lyeth
  at barton apon Hombre and Grymsby, whyche ar nygh on to thos costes,
  and you know my lord that so great a nomber of men as wee be can not
  be vytalled and loged if they shuld lye all in one place and therfore
  they do not remayn only in the townes affore named but also in the
  Citie of lyncoln and all other townes and vyllages abowght the same,
  to th’ entent they may be well vytalled and loged at ther ese, and not
  for no other cause, and this my lordes grace commanded me to swee yowr
  lordssip.

  The lord Darcy  my felowe I am veray glade to here yow this say, and I
  pray god thanke my lord of Suffolk for sending yow hyther to us with
  this newys. and sirs I am glade yow ar here to here my felowes mesage
  pray yow report it to our cappteyn and to other the comons for they
  wylbe veryray glade to here it. for before they were in great dowght
  thereof.

  The herauld  sir my lord of Suffolks Grace understondeth that a lettre
  that he wrotte to the lord of cumberland in comfortyng hym to kepe hym
  self agenst the rebellyous[1404], for the whych name sum be angrye
  therwith, he trusteth that yowr lordship: whych he hath hard ever
  speke of so muche honor, ne no other man of nobillitie substance or
  honest reputacion: will take hym self, in the lien of that name, but
  they that be other and taketh them self for rebellyous his grace
  thinkith he can not gyve them a fayrer name.

  The lord Darcy  my felowe of truyth suche a letter came to our
  cappteynes handes, and as toychyng rebellyous if ther be any suche I
  wold to god, they were with my lord of Suffolk at lyncoln, and as for
  me I trust to declare my self for non of them but for the Kynges true
  servante, and I have don hym good servyce, I wyll shewe yow howe. Sir
  at the first tyme that Aske reysed the peple here abowghtes [_noted in
  margin_] I sayd to my ffryndes and servantz sirs wee can not do the
  Kyng a hygher servyce, than take this felowe, and I layd suche wayte
  for hym, that if he had kept the appoyntmentz that he made with
  gentelmen to come and lye with them at ther howses at iii or iiii
  nyghtes one after the other I had taken hym, but whan he appoynted to
  be with ony of them at one nyght he wold not come in ii or iii nyghts
  after, and whan I sawe I could not gett hym, and that the peple ded
  aryse on every parte, ye and fother that I myghte not trust my own
  tenantz, than I wente with as monye as I myght gett to the kynges
  castell of pomifrytte to kepe and defende the same and I had with me
  xiii^{xx} men at my own coste xiiii days, and put the kyng not to one
  halfpenye of charge, and thyther came to me the archibussop of Yorke,
  and master magnus thinkyng by cause I was an old man of warre, that by
  my polycie they might have escaped. they can bere me record of all
  this that I shew yow, and thair I sent lettres to the Kyng for yede
  what answer I had from hys hyghnes I have redy to shewe, and also I
  sent lettres to our lord lieu tenante and his answere I have in lyke
  case to shewe, and every day the cappteyn wrytt letters charging me
  apon payne of my lyff, that I shuld yeld the castell and do as they
  wold do, and if I wold not, if they myght take me by fforce they wold
  slee me, and all they that was with me, and ferther they wold born my
  howses, and kylle my sons childern, than I beyng in this myschif seyng
  no other remyde wold have made with them compossion, and this was on
  the fryday at nyght, and I bade them xx li to spare me tell the morowe
  ix of the cloke, and for all that I could doo with all the fryndes I
  could make, they wold not respyte me but tell vii of the cloke, than
  could I not hyere ne see no sucker come and I had not in the castell
  so muche gowne-powdre as wold fylle a whalnot shell no nor I had not
  so muche fuell as to dresse our supper, and ferther my vytalles that
  shuld have come to me was eten and dronkyn in the strete beffore my
  face, I than beyng an old man of warre and knowyng the feates therof,
  perseyvyng my self in that danger and could escappe no otherwyse with
  my lyff, for savegard of the same ded yelde my self, and I promysse
  yow if I had not wrought politykly, it had cost me my lyff.

  The herauld  my lord I think well that this is true that yow say, and
  at that tyme ye could not have esscapped with yowr lyff no otherwyse
  than ye dede, but whan yow were at the entreatie with the lordes
  beffore dancastre, I am sure ye were a great dystance from the hoste,
  I mervell than that yowr lordship had not gone from them with the
  lordes for ye myght have esscapped ther handes at that tyme if it had
  plesed yowr lordship.

  The lord Darcy  my felowe I wyll shewe yow a taylle for that whan
  Thomas fitz Garrard ded rebelle in Irelande he sente word to the duc
  of Rychemonde howse [_whose_] sole god pardon that if he wold reseyve
  hym he wold yeld hym to hym, and the duc answered full wysely and sayd
  by my fethe if I were sure to gett hym his pardon, I wold be glade to
  reseyve hym, but he that wyll ley his hed on the bloke, may haue it
  sone stryken of [_note in the margin_: What he menyth by this and how
  he knew that fizgarrard offred himself to my lorde of Rychmond].

  and my felow I spake to my lord of Shryesbury with thes wordes Talbot
  hold up thy longe clee and promyse me that I shall have the Kynges
  favor and shalbe Indeferently hard, and I wyll come to dancastre to
  yow, and th’ erll of Shryesbury sayd to me well lord Darcy, than ye
  shall not come it [_sic_], and ferther if I had thought any treason I
  myght have foughten with the duc of norfolk and th’ erll of
  Shryesbury, on the othersyde of dancastre with ther own men and
  brought never a man of our hoste with me.

  [_Note in margin_: how he knew that the duke of Norfolkes men woold
  have fought agaynst hym.]

  The herauld  my lord I think that muche that yow say is true but sir
  were yow say that ye myght have foughten with the duc of Norfolk and
  th’ erll of Shreysbury with ther own men by my truyth I thinke if ther
  men ded promyse to tak your parte if ye wold come and fyght with them
  they ded it to dysseve yow to the entent to haue gotten therby sum
  pyllage or other profith, for they had not a subtillier meane to
  dysseve ther enymys than to promyse them to fyght with them, and whan
  it cometh to the poynt to fight agenst them, and so I think they wold
  have proved yow and if you had proved them, and one thing I am sure of
  that ther was never men more desyros to fyght with men than our men be
  to fyght with yow and if it pleased the Kyng to suffre them.

  The lord Darcy  well I pray god they be all as true as yow think they
  be, but let that passe. if it please the Kynges highnes to send me my
  pardon, although I have no nede of it if I myght be Indeferently hard,
  onles they wyll say it is treason that I was amonges them, whych was
  for savegard of my lyfe, as I have sayd, I wyll come to his highnes
  were it will pleas hys grace to have me, and I hyere say that manye
  persuacions be made by Cromwell and other to the gentillmen here to
  come from hence to the kyng whome I pray god longe to preserve in
  proprius helth hys highnes may well have them so that he pardon them,
  but it is not so muche suerty for his own person to have them with hym
  in brydwell as to have them here; for I can prove that wee have done
  his highness as good servyce as though wee had byn in hys pryvye
  chamber and as for my part I have byn and ever wylbe true both to kyng
  henry the vii and to the kyng our soverayn lord and I defye hym that
  wyll say the contrary, for as I have ever sayd one god one feth and
  one kyng.

  The herauld.  my lord ye say truyth wee can have but one god one feth
  and one kyng, and my lord ye say that ye were true servant to kyng
  henry vii and to the kyng our soverayn lord sir I think ye were true
  to the kyng hys father and to his grace at ther coronacons whan yow
  did your homage and fealty, my lord I pray yow pardon me that I am so
  playn with your lordshipe, for ye I thinke may well say that ye were
  ever true to kyng henry the vii, and by my feth I never hard the
  contrary but my lord as to the kyng: howe can yow say that yow have
  byn ever true to hym: seyng that yow have borne harnys agenst his lieu
  tenante whych represented his own person for that tyme.

  The lord Darcy  that that I ded was by constraynte for to save my lyf,
  and that myght welbe perseyved whan we were at the entreatie at
  dancastre, for by cause the lordes and wee tarried a whyll abowght the
  entreatie our own hoste wold have ronned apon us to have kylled us
  sayng that wee wold bytray them.

  The herauld  well my lord of truyth in tymes paste whan I have byn
  with your lordship at mortlake and at Westmynster I have hard yow
  always speke of so muche honor truthe and fethfulnes, that if yow
  shuld be falty in any of them ye were worthye beffore all other to
  suffre for it. I trust yowr lordship will not be angrye with me that I
  shewe yow as my hert thinkes.

  The lord Darcy  no my felowe for yow say truth for I had rather have
  my hed stryken of than I wold defyle my cote armor, for it shall never
  be sayd that old Thome shall have one treators tothe in his hed, but
  the King nor no other alyve: shall make me do any unlaufull acte, as
  to stryke of your hed, and to send it hym in a sake, whych thing myght
  be a rebuke to me and to my heyres for ever. [_Note in margin_  no.
  the strykyng off the hede]

  The herauld  my lord yow speke this as though sum mocyon hath byn made
  to yow, to take your capptayn, and send hym to the Kyng, thinke yow my
  lord that it were a unlaufull acte, to tak or kylle hym and send hym
  to the Kyng, if he be a rebellyon as sum do take hym.

  The lord Darcy  my felowe peraventure it were lawfull for yow and not
  for me, for he that promysseth to be true to one, and deseyveth hym,
  may be called a treator: whych shall never be seyd in me [_note in
  margin_: no. the promise of the lord Darcy] for what is a man but is
  [_his_] promysse, but for all laufull thinges whych is not agenst our
  feth, he is not lyving that shalbe more redy to do his grace
  comandement than I, for if his highness would comand me to go with yow
  his herauld to defie the great Turk, by the fethe that I owe to god
  and hym I wold do it with a good wyll as old as I am.

  The herauld  my lord by cause ye speke of our feth howe say yow to the
  excludyng of bushope [_sic_] of Rome, and his auctorytie, do yow
  thinke that that is agenst our feth.

  The lord Darcy  by my truth I think that is not agenst our feth, and
  what I spake therin to Cromwell, he knoweth hym self well Inough.

  The herauld  my lord I pray yow gyve me leve to aske other questyones
  of yowr lordship. sir hyere yow that any other be upe ferther north.

  The lord Darcy  my felowe is [_sic_] I hyer say that ther is a huge
  nomber upe in Westmorland comberland and lancashyre, and have
  mustered, and abowght the bushoppryche of Durem they begyn to spoylle,
  and by cause yow shall hyere the truyth, ye shall hyere one of my
  seruantz an honest hardy man, I wold the kyng had x m suche, and he
  hath byn amongst them, and sawe ther musters, and than his seruante
  whas called upe, and when he came, the lord Darcy commanded hym to
  shewe the herauld what he had seen in Westmerland comberland and
  lancashyre, than sayd his seruante that he had byn amongst them and
  that he had seen them mustering and by ther report they were to the
  nomber of vii{^xx} thowsand [140,000] men.

  The herauld  I mervell not muche to hyre of that grete nomber that
  yowr servante speketh of for I thinke well ther may be so many tage
  and rage but truly of chosyn men of warre ther be not so many as I
  think in al the north and half Scotland.

  The lord Darcy  sir ye knowe not this countrey, for it is a countrey
  greatly pepled  Well I wyll speke no more thereof, but by my fethe
  [_word obliterated_] letter that cometh nowe to my remembrance that
  was sente to our cappteyn causeth my hert to blede, for it was wrytten
  to hym out of thos parties that he shuld not shrynk in this busynes
  and they wold send hym xxx, m men with a moneth wages in ther pursses
  and ever that were don they wold send an other moneth wages and the
  therd if nede shuld be, and besydes this they have xxx m men moo to
  defend agenst the Scotts if they wylbe busie, for they have mustered,
  and shewed ther selfes aginst the coste and all this is besydes our
  companye.

  The herauld  my lord if it be so it [_yet_] thanked be god the kyng
  hath men Inough to meat with them all and one thing wee be sure of,
  wee have the ryght if god be god, for I knowe that it is agenst the
  lawe of god to be periured and ther is non that can fyght agenst the
  King ther naturall soverayn lord ne agenst anie of his true subiectes
  what quarell so ever it be with owt his grace comyssion, that can
  excuse ther selves from periury.

  The lord Darcy ye say true if they were resonable men, but I wold to
  Christ the King knowe the Jeobardy that is in it for as ferre as I can
  perseyve by any thing that I can hyre the kyng is so encensed, that he
  knoweth not the truyth, therefore I wold I myght speke with my son
  bryan or my son Russell for I knowe that they dare and wyll speke to
  the King the truyth I pray god all may be well, now my felowe by cause
  it is cold, I pray yow take the payne to go with my servante ther, and
  he shall brynge yow to a fyer to ese your self.

  And his servante brought hym into a fayre parlor were was a good fyer,
  and brought hym a pasty of veneson brede wyne and bere, and made hym
  good chere and after he had well esed hym self, the lord sent for hym
  agen, and sayd My felowe have yow any thing els to say to me from my
  lord of Suffolk.

  The herauld  Sir ye, my lordes grace understondeth that it is comenly
  noyssed here amonge yow, that our armye shuld Robe spoylle and vyolate
  euery manes wyf doughter and servante and that ther shuld be put to
  execution manye of the comons that hath submytted ther selfes, sir,
  the truyth is that ther was never no suche actz comytted amongest us
  except one Robyrie that was don on a preste for the whych one of our
  own armye sir frances bryan servante was putt to execucion.

  The lord Darcy  Sir shewe my lordes grace that wee hyre full well that
  he doth good Justice, and specyally at Stamford by hym that cryed a
  newe kyng[1405], for if he had byn amongest us in all our Rage he
  shuld never have come to execusion, but wee wold have hewen hym in a
  thowsande pees, wee love so our kyng, therefor it I say agen I wold he
  were hanged by the neck that wyll refuce his pardon, for if his grace
  wyll send it me not with stondyng I have no nede to have it if I myght
  be Indeferently hard I wyll come to his grace let them burn this
  house, and kyll my sons chyldern yf they wyll, so that I myght scappe
  with my lyff from them, let this passe, sir I have reseyved a lettre
  syns yow were here, I pray yow rede this artycle in it and the herauld
  ded rede it, were in was wryten by hym that sent it after this maner,
  My Lord I hard the Lord Cromwell say that yow were a notaryus treator,
  and I answered that he was a false knave and yowr lordship shuld prove
  your self a true man to the kyng, then sayd the lord Darcy, I beshrewe
  hym for his labor, for I knowe I spak folyshe wordes of hym my self at
  dancastre the whych nowe I am sorye for, for to say truth every man
  had a begynyng and he that the kyng will have honored wee must all
  honor and god forbyde that any subiect shuld goo abought to rule the
  kyng in his owne realme or be agenst his plesure in any lawfull thing,
  and my felow ther was sent me a ryme owt of Westmerland lancashyre and
  comberland that makith me to lawgh, for by my truth I mervell how they
  can make it, and yow shall have it with yow[1406], and he toke it to
  the herauld whych brought it to the kyng, and ferther he sayd to the
  herauld

  shewe my lord of Suffolk that the comens have beseged carlyell, and
  the mayer hath proffered to be sorne [_sworn_] to them, and they wyll
  not reseyve hym, but that they wyll have the towne, and the castell at
  ther plesures, and also shew hym that my lord of comberland is in
  great parell of his lyf for if the comens myght gette hym, they would
  kylle hym for he is the worst beloved that ever I hard of, and
  specially with his own tenants, and if ther be no remyde founde I
  thinke he can not escappe, it the cappteyn [‘is his’ _crossed out_]
  and he be come of ii sustres [_written in_] [son _crossed out_] and he
  hath wrytten dyvers lettres for hym, I feth I wold he were in this
  howse, than I wold trust to ryde hym out of ther haundes.

  The herauld  my lord I pray you what means suld be founde to helpe
  hym.

  The lord Darcy well my lord of Suffolk is wyse Inough and can devyse a
  meane for hym full well, I pray yow have me humble recomended onto his
  grace, and shewe hym that I pray god the kyng have not as muche nede
  to tak side nerar home as here for and he sawe the lettres that cometh
  dayly to our capteyn from all parties of this realme he wold mervell.
  I pray god save the kyng. [_Note in margin_: An Interogatory upon
  this.]

  and than the lord Darcy tok hym by the hand and gave hym a dowble
  duket and to barwyk persyvante an angell and so wee tok our leve of
  his lordship.


                          NOTES TO CHAPTER XII

Note A. The date at which Sir Ingram Percy came to York is not known
with certainty, but his visit appears to have taken place about this
time.


Note B. Sir Brian Hastings misrepresented the summons in his letter of
13 November. “The rebels intended to have had a general council or
parliament at York on Saturday last but the posts from my Lord of
Norfolk, Sir Ralph Ellerker and Mr Bowes stayed them.”[1407] As a matter
of fact it was the posts which caused the Council to be summoned.
Hastings’ information was often inaccurate.


Note C. It seems that Ratcliff was either going to or returning from
Lancashire when he was captured, for otherwise he had no reason to go
near Wakefield, and as he was carrying letters to the Lord Admiral
[Fitzwilliam] it was probably his return journey. The letter containing
the news of his capture was written by Gervis Clyfton to Mr Bankes.
Robert Bankes gave evidence against the rebels before the Earl of Derby
on 2 December[1408]. He may have been the person to whom the letter is
addressed.


Note D. Thomas Treheyron, Somerset Herald, was murdered in Scotland by
two of the Lincolnshire refugees in November 1542[1409].


Note E. The only other reference to this incident, which seems to have
been the appearance of the usual Yorkist pretender, is made by Wilfred
Holme, who says that

                           ... “the commons before Doncaster
         Ascribed a Carter to a king coequal in degree.”[1410]


Note F. There were a great many rhymes flying about and it is impossible
to identify this one. Many of the rebel manifestoes were roughly
metrical. The following is part of one which circulated in Westmorland
and Lancashire:

        “Gentle commons, have this in your mind,
        Every man take his lands’ lord and ye have need,
        As we did in Kendalland
        Then shall ye speed.
        Make your writings, command
        Them to seal to grant you your petitions as your desire.
        Lords spiritual and temporal, have it in your mind,
        The world as it waveth,
        And to your tenants be ye kind,
        Then may you go on pilgrimage
        Nothing you withstand,
        And commons to you be true through all Christen land,
        To maintain the faith of Holy Church
        As ye have take on hand.
        Adieu, gentle commons, thus I make an end.
        Maker of this letter, pray Jesu be his speed,
        He shall be your captain
        When that ye have need.”

This proclamation is printed twice in the Letters and Papers, vol. XI,
892 (3) and vol. XII (1), 163 (2).

There was a song against Cromwell called Crummock, which was sung in
Westmorland in the time of the rebellion. It may have contained some
local allusion to Crummock Water[1411], but the commons of Yorkshire
also sang

        “Cosh, Crummock, cosh, I would we had thee here,”[1412]

which must have likened the Lord Privy Seal to a bad-tempered cow.

In the summer of 1538 Isaac Dickson commanded a minstrel who was singing
in an ale-house by Windermere to give the song called Crummock which he
had sung at Crossthwaite during the rebellion. The minstrel, who had to
adapt his wares to the party in power, did not dare to sing the song.
Dickson passed from threats to blows, but still the minstrel refused,
fearing the halter more than Dickson’s dagger. There was a brawl, and
both Dickson and the minstrel were arrested[1413].

In connection with Friar Pickering’s poem comparing Cromwell to Haman,
it may be noted that in the anonymous play of “Godly Queen Hester,”
which is attributed to Skelton, a similar parallel is drawn between
Haman and Wolsey, the suppression of monasteries by the latter being
likened to Haman’s persecution of the Jews. See “The Library” October
1913 “Early Political Plays” by M. H. Dodds.




                              CHAPTER XIII
                          THE COUNCIL AT YORK


On Tuesday 14 November 1536 the King decided that the Pilgrims’
ambassadors must be sent back with some sort of answer, as the reports
from the north showed that delay was not producing so good an effect as
he had hoped[1414].

On Thursday 16 November Sir Brian Hastings sent to Lord Darcy a
complaint that the commons were killing the King’s deer[1415]. Darcy
wrote back next day in very good spirits, for he had heard that Sir
Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes were returning and would be at Doncaster
next day[1416]. Now that they were on their way home down the road over
which they had travelled with such anxious hearts three weeks before,
the two northern gentlemen made all the haste they could, and seem to
have reached Templehurst late on Friday 17 November[1417]. A post was
despatched on their arrival to summon Aske from Wressell, but rumour had
preceded it. Aske was told that Bowes and Ellerker had returned with
orders to arrest him, and he wrote to Darcy to inquire into the meaning
of this warning. Darcy replied with a most emphatic assurance that
“neither Sir Ralph Ellerker nor Robert Bowes, my cousins, nor myself
would for none earthly goods send to have you come hither but after a
just and true sort.” Darcy begged Aske to come at once, as his presence
was urgently required. A post must be sent to London that day, and
measures must be taken for the meeting at York and other matters. Darcy
advised him to bring William Babthorpe with him[1418].

The letter and credence of Bowes and Ellerker were laid before the small
council of the chief captains of the Pilgrimage at Templehurst on
Saturday 18 November[1419]. Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, Aske and
Babthorpe were present, and there may have been others. The report of
the messengers was not very satisfactory. The King’s reply to the
articles, written in his own hand, was not forthcoming. There was only a
verbal message, and when it was divested of Henry’s complaints about the
unnatural conduct of his subjects, reproaches for breaches of the truce,
and professions of clemency, all that remained was the statement that he
found their articles “general, dark, and obscure,” but that he would
send the Duke of Norfolk to Doncaster to make a full reply to them. The
rebels were to appoint three hundred representatives to meet the Duke,
and if they insisted they might have a safeconduct[1420]. Norfolk’s
letter was a little more explicit, as he suggested that the meeting
should take place on 29 November; he added that as a special compliment
to Darcy his kinsman Fitzwilliam had been appointed to attend the
meeting. As the letter was intended to be read openly, Norfolk made no
allusion to the capture of Aske, and merely replied to Darcy’s
remonstrance, “I have lived too long to think otherwise than truly and
honestly,” which was rather a doubtful argument[1421].

Darcy was very anxious that the King’s offer should be accepted at once.
He was better acquainted with Henry than the other gentlemen, and knew
that what appeared at first sight vague and unsatisfactory was really an
extraordinary condescension. He wanted to despatch a message of
acceptance immediately[1422], but the other captains were not so well
pleased and insisted on referring the letter and message, with the whole
question of peace or war, to the great council which had already been
summoned to meet at York[1423]. As it was to be held on Tuesday 21
November, this meant only three days delay in the answer, which did not
seem an unreasonable length of time after the King had kept them waiting
for three weeks. The gentlemen had begun to assemble at York as early as
15 November[1424], and all would be ready on the appointed day.

As the negotiations might come to nothing, the captains at Templehurst
debated as to what they should do if the treaty fell through and war was
declared. They made arrangements for garrisoning Hull, Pontefract, and
other places, and discussed the difficulties of obtaining provisions and
ammunition[1425]. It was decided that on the outbreak of hostilities
they must divide their forces into three armies to cross the Trent at
three different points, and a rendezvous was appointed on the south of
the river[1426]. They considered the question of opening communications
with the Emperor, who, they believed, would help them. Dr Marmaduke
Walby, vicar of Kirk Deighton and prebendary of Carlisle, had come to
Templehurst with Sir Robert Constable[1427]. It was resolved that he
should sail for the Netherlands to ask the Regent to send money, 2000
arquebuses and 2000 horsemen, and to open communications with the Pope
on behalf of the Pilgrims. Darcy said that he would inform the Imperial
ambassador in London that Walby was going on this mission[1428]. Walby
was selected because he knew noblemen at the Regent’s court who had
formerly been ambassadors in England. He was given £20 for his expenses
and went to Hull, but before he embarked Darcy sent word that he was to
delay his journey; on hearing this he returned home and never took the
message[1429].

The captains who had met at Templehurst seem to have remained there
until it was time to go to York. Aske was at Templehurst on Sunday 19
November[1430]. That night a warning was sent to Pontefract that Sir
Henry Saville had ordered all his men to muster at Rotherham on the
following day. Saville knew that “all the great men” were now “forth of
their business,” and it was feared that he was secretly cooperating with
the royal troops to capture Wakefield or Pontefract, possibly even
Templehurst and the captains there[1431]. This news was sent on from
Pontefract to Wakefield, where the energetic Thomas Grice seized Sir
Henry Saville’s men before they could set out, and compelled Brian
Bradford and others to take the Pilgrims’ oath before witnesses[1432].

Shrewsbury was told on 19 November that Thomas Grice was harassing Sir
Henry’s loyal tenants so that they were forced to fly to Rotherham and
elsewhere[1433]. On this report Shrewsbury wrote to Darcy to complain of
his steward’s conduct, and Darcy, after receiving Grice’s explanation,
wrote back to ask Shrewsbury to keep Sir Henry Saville in order[1434].
It is possible that this was an actual attempt to capture the leaders of
the Pilgrimage when they were all together at Templehurst. Several
points suggest this explanation, as for instance the rumour which Aske
heard before he came to Templehurst[1435], the fact that no excuse for
Sir Henry Saville’s conduct was offered, although the previous alarm
caused by Sir Brian Hastings had been explained, Sir Henry Saville’s
prompt flight to Shrewsbury at Wingfield[1436], and Suffolk’s letter to
the King on Monday 20 November, the day after the supposed attempt had
been baffled by Grice’s vigilance. In this letter Suffolk wrote that the
apprehension of Aske and Constable was a very doubtful matter, which he
would not attempt unless he was sure that it could not come to their
knowledge until it was accomplished, as if suspected it would only cause
more mischief[1437]. This suggests that Suffolk had recently tried to
carry out the King’s request, but, having failed, wished to hide his
failure and to excuse himself from any further endeavour.

Norfolk and Fitzwilliam had already set out from London, and had
advanced as far as “the house of Sir Robert a Lee,” at Quarrendon in
Buckinghamshire[1438], when they were met by a messenger from Bowes and
Ellerker sent to tell them that the Pilgrims had not yet decided to
treat with them[1439]. Norfolk wrote to Darcy on Monday 20 November,
complaining bitterly of the alarm on Martinmas day, which he attributed
to false persons who desired to prevent a peaceful settlement of the
trouble. He begged Darcy to use all his influence on behalf of peace,
and assured him that on the King’s side nothing was “thought or meant to
impeach the same our good purpose.”[1440] The Pilgrims’ suspicion had
naturally been awakened by the network of royal plots which they
discovered or half-discovered. They were no longer so sure as they had
been in the beginning that the King was the fountain of honour, and that
Norfolk was as straightforward as they were themselves. It was
unfortunate that they were cheated again by Norfolk’s fair words.

In spite of the delay in the Pilgrims’ answer, Norfolk and Fitzwilliam
decided to continue their journey in order to review the royal troops,
inspect the fortifications at Nottingham and Derby, and consult with
Suffolk at Newark[1441].

On Tuesday 21 November the great council of the Pilgrims assembled at
York. The building where they held their meetings is never named. Darcy
was not present; the captains agreed to excuse him on account of the
difficulty which he had in travelling, and he remained at home until the
second great meeting which they had already determined to hold at
Pontefract[1442]. The captains who are named as being present at York
were Robert Aske, Sir Robert Constable, Sir Stephen Hamerton[1443],
Nicholas Tempest, Lord Latimer, Sir James Strangways, Robert Chaloner,
Sir Ralph Ellerker, Robert Bowes, William Babthorpe, William Stapleton,
Lord Scrope, Sir Nicholas Fairfax, and Sir Richard Tempest[1444]. There
were in addition about 800 of the lesser gentlemen and commons, as a
certain number had been chosen out of every wapentake or parish to
attend the meeting[1445]. The Abbot of Holm Cultram gave 40s. to the
representatives from Penrith[1446]. Among these less important persons
were Marmaduke Neville, a younger brother of the Earl of
Westmorland[1447], one Walker, John Fowbery, William Aclom, and Robert
Pullen[1448]. There were also some royal spies, for instance Hugh
Hilton, a servant of the Earl of Huntingdon[1449]. The most interesting
of these spies was Christopher Aske. He had arrived at Wressell Castle
on Friday 17 November, under safeconduct, to lay before Robert Aske the
injuries that the Earl of Cumberland had received from the commons. On
his arrival the two brothers fell into an argument as to whether Robert
could have taken Skipton Castle or not. Robert said that though it was
strong the defenders wanted artillery and powder, and he could have
taken it easily. Christopher replied that it was impregnable, and should
never be taken while the Earl and he himself were alive. In describing
this conversation to Norfolk months afterwards, Robert acknowledged that
he had been misled by an intercepted letter from Cumberland which really
related to the weakness of Carlisle, and consequently perhaps he could
not have taken Skipton. While the brothers were discussing this
interesting point, Darcy’s letter announcing the arrival of Bowes and
Ellerker was brought to Robert, who hastily prepared to ride to
Templehurst with about sixty of his men. His followers grumbled at the
sudden summons because they had not yet had their dinner, and said “a
man was worthy his meat, or else his service was ill.” Christopher took
the opportunity to assure his brother that the commons would turn
against him and either kill him themselves or give him up to his enemies
“like Jacques Dartnell, William Wallas and others.” Much the wisest and
safest course for Robert would be to go and make his peace with the
King. Robert, however, was no fine gentleman; he thoroughly understood
his rough followers, and paid not the smallest attention to
Christopher’s prognostications. His Yorkshiremen never betrayed
him,—that was reserved for the King. While Robert was away Christopher
contrived to go through his brother’s private papers, and found the
scheme for invading the south which had been drawn up in case the
negotiations at Doncaster should fail. Christopher afterwards went to
York and there “demeaned himself so covertly that he returned to
Cumberland knowing all their purposes.”[1450]

The first business of the great council at York was to appoint two
hundred representatives to deal with the questions before them[1451].
Robert Bowes gave an account of his mission to this body, telling them
everything that had been said and done before the King and his Council,
mentioning the proposed conference at Doncaster, and reciting “the
goodness of my lord Privy Seal to the commons promised by his word—and
therewith he stayed.” Henry and Cromwell had made good use of the time
that the ambassadors spent at court by winning them entirely to the
King’s side. Bowes and Ellerker were not influenced in any dishonourable
way, but they came back quite convinced of the King’s good faith and
mercy, and satisfied that the Pilgrims might safely disband, since their
purposes were accomplished. As far as they were personally concerned
they were right to believe in Henry’s goodwill, for they were both
trusted and employed by him after the rebellion.

When Bowes had finished his speech Sir Robert Constable requested him to
withdraw while the council debated on it. Constable then laid before
them a very different matter[1452].

Young Sir Ralph Evers had been besieged in Scarborough Castle as early
as 17 October[1453]. Supplies had been sent to him about 27 October,
rather against the King’s will, as he was afraid the rebels would
capture them[1454]. They arrived safely, and after the truce, when the
siege was raised, Evers wrote to ask Suffolk for more[1455]. His request
was sent up to London on 5 November, and on 10 November Cromwell himself
wrote to Evers[1456] and sent the letter to Thomas Hatcliff at Lincoln.
Hatcliff despatched a trusty messenger with £100 and the letter to
Grimsby, where they were entrusted to Edward Waters to be conveyed to
Scarborough[1457]. On Wednesday 15 November he embarked in a “crayer,”
and for some days no further news was heard of him by his
comrades[1458]. He was, however, almost immediately captured by the
commons of Beverley and the Wold under the leadership of John Hallam,
and the siege of Scarborough Castle was at once renewed. Hallam “wrung
Waters by the beard” and threatened to cut his head off. By this
violence he extracted from him the confession that Cromwell had sent
him[1459]. To save himself Waters produced Cromwell’s letter. The
commons divided all the loose cash on the ship among them, receiving 3s.
each, but they sent to Aske the £100, Edward Waters, and Cromwell’s
letter. Waters remained with Aske, but his troubles were now over and he
was not treated like a prisoner. He had a servant, a chamber and a
feather bed of his own, and spent his time in hunting and
shooting[1460].

It was the letter which had been captured on this occasion that Sir
Robert Constable now read to the council of the Pilgrims at York, in
order that they might compare it with “the goodness of my lord Privy
Seal to the commons, promised by his word.” On 10 November Cromwell had
written that if the Pilgrims continued longer in rebellion they should
be so subdued that “their example shall be fearful to all subjects
whiles the world doth endure.”[1461] The reading of this letter
naturally made a great impression on the assembly. The flat
contradiction between the two messages confirmed the suspicion that the
King’s conduct had awakened. The Pilgrims doubted whether it would be
safe to treat with the King while he was under the influence of a man so
unscrupulous as Cromwell. Sir Robert Constable gave his advice most
decidedly, “as he had broken one point in the tables with the King he
would break another, and have no meeting, but have all the country made
sure from Trent northwards, and then he had no doubt all Lancashire,
Cheshire, Derbyshire and the parts thereabout would join with them.
Then, he said, he would condescend to a meeting.”[1462] But there were
strong influences on the other side. Darcy was known to be in favour of
the conference[1463]. Babthorpe spoke on the side of peace[1464]. Aske
adhered steadily to his policy of trying every means to obtain peaceful
redress of their grievances before they resorted to force. The King had
replied to the articles, although the Pilgrims had not yet received his
answer. It would be the height of inconsistency to present a petition
and then refuse to receive the reply. They would commit themselves to
nothing by agreeing to confer with the Duke of Norfolk, and much good
might result from the conference. The treachery which they all resented
so bitterly must be due to the evil influence of Cromwell, but
Cromwell’s power, as they hoped, was waning. They were going to treat,
not with Cromwell, but with Norfolk, and Norfolk was faithful and
honourable. He would perform his promises, and once he was restored to
his place at court he would bring the King back to a better frame of
mind. Such seem to have been the arguments employed by the advocates of
the conference, but no further record of the debate remains. In the end
the peace party prevailed, and it was decided that three hundred
representatives should be sent to Doncaster to meet Norfolk and to hear
the King’s reply on St Nicholas’ Eve, Tuesday 5 December[1465]. This
date was fixed upon in order to give time for sending messages into
distant parts of the country[1466].

The next point to be discussed was the King’s complaint that the
articles which had been sent to him were vague and obscure. To remove
this difficulty it was resolved that another general council should be
held at Pontefract two days before the conference at Doncaster. Every
shire or wapentake would be desired to send the discreetest men to
represent it, and the representatives must bring up a list of the
grievances of their own district[1467]. This order resembles the
“cahiers” of the Third Estate at the meeting of the States General in
1789. All the grievances were to be laid before the general council and
digested into a set of articles explanatory of the first, and this new
set of articles would be sent to Norfolk. At the same time the
Archbishop of York and other learned men were to be requested to draw up
spiritual articles setting forth all the grievances connected with
religion[1468]. It was further resolved that Lord Darcy should be
instructed to have everything prepared at Pontefract for the meeting,
and a list was drawn up of the districts from which the three hundred
were to be summoned, with the names of the principal gentlemen and the
number of commons who were to appear from each place[1469].

After the most important business of the meeting was completed, minor
points were considered. Complaints were made of the behaviour of Sir
Henry Saville, and it was decided that the whole matter should be
entrusted to Darcy, as he was already in communication with Shrewsbury
about it[1470]. A letter was drawn up requesting the Earl of Cumberland
to surrender Skipton Castle; Lord Scrope, Sir Richard Tempest and others
were appointed to carry it, but in the end it seems to have been sent by
Christopher Aske[1471]. All the resolutions of the meeting were written
down, and a report of them was sent to Darcy[1472].

This seems to have been all the business which was transacted that day,
and at the end of the afternoon sitting all dispersed to their
lodgings[1473], Constable and Bowes being at the house of Sir George
Lawson[1474].

Next morning Wednesday 22 November the council met again. Another
obstacle in the way of peace was laid before them. There were
disturbances in Lancashire, and in Dent and Sedbergh[1475]. Derby had
written to Fitzwilliam on 19 November to say that he was under an
obligation to melt down the lead and bells of the suppressed priory of
Burscough before 30 November, but he was afraid to do so as it might
provoke a fresh rising. He therefore asked the King to grant him
respite. As the letter was not despatched before Sunday 19 November, he
probably had received no answer and the rumour that he was going to
fulfil the obligation was causing fresh unrest[1476]. When the matter
was laid before the council at York, Sir Robert Constable again took the
side of resistance, and advised that nothing should be done to
discourage their allies in those parts. William Babthorpe spoke on the
other side, and in the end a compromise was reached[1477]. Darcy was
requested to communicate with Shrewsbury in order that the Earl of Derby
might be restrained[1478]. In the meantime, orders were sent to Craven,
Kendal, Dent, Sedbergh and Lonsdale that if Lancashire mustered they
were to muster also and send word to the captain[1479]. The council felt
justified in giving this order by Cromwell’s letter and the attempted
relief of Scarborough, which were “contrary to the appointment.”[1480]

A letter was drawn up and sent to Norfolk to suggest arrangements for
the conference at Doncaster. This letter has been lost,—may we imagine
that Henry tore it up in a fit of rage?—but its contents seem to have
been as follows:—

  (1) The Pilgrims complained that Waters’ expedition to Scarborough was
  a breach of the truce[1481].

  (2) The meeting at Doncaster was to take place on St Nicholas Eve, 5
  December[1482].

  (3) It was requested that there might be a truce for fourteen days
  after that date[1483].

  (4) The Pilgrims required safe conducts for those who were to meet
  Norfolk, and hostages for Aske, as he ran the greatest risk[1484].

  (5) They desired that the meeting might take place on neutral
  ground[1485].

The other business which came before the council that day related to the
restored monasteries; as the rebels had put the monks in again the
latter turned to the leaders for help in the difficulties of their new
position. In reply to one of these appeals the council ordered that
Robert, Prior of Guisborough, should enjoy his office, and Sir John
Bulmer was required to see that the order was executed[1486]. The Prior
of Sawley had sent his chaplain to Aske to desire counsel touching the
house. The chaplain spoke to Nicholas Tempest, who advised him to find
friends to plead his cause at the great council at Pontefract[1487].

There remains no record of the business which the council at York
transacted on Thursday 23 November. There was probably some discussion
of the grievances which were to be considered more fully at Pontefract.
It was commonly said that the statute empowering the King to appoint his
successor by will had been framed in order that Cromwell himself might
be made the King’s heir. Earlier in the year it had been said that he
was plotting to marry the Lady Mary[1488]. Now the story went that he
was to have married Lady Margaret Douglas, the King’s niece, and that
when her secret marriage with Lord Thomas Howard was discovered, the act
of attainder against Lord Thomas had been procured so that it might
still be possible for Cromwell to marry Lady Margaret. When John Hallam
returned to Scarborough from the council at York, he reported that the
council had resolved that the statute must be repealed and that the Lady
Mary must be acknowledged as the King’s heir, for if these measures were
not taken the King would make Cromwell his heir[1489].

The commons stated very emphatically that they would have no pardon but
by Act of Parliament, and that Parliament must be held at some place
where all could come and go safely. On this point one of the petty
captains named Walker said to Aske at the council, “Look you well upon
this matter, for it is your charge, for if you do not you shall repent
it,”[1490] a prophecy which was sadly fulfilled. The commons of
Westmorland had already delivered a list of their grievances, and Aske
sent back instructions that they must inquire into the visitation of
Legh and Layton, and take the opinion of the clergy of Cumberland and
Westmorland on matters of faith[1491]. Altogether the sitting seems to
have been a stormy one, and a spy reported that he thought the Pilgrims
would come to no agreement with Norfolk at Doncaster[1492].

On Friday 24 November an order was made, by the advice of Bowes[1493],
that there should be no plundering, musters nor casting down of
enclosures until the meeting at Doncaster, unless “commanded by our
captain general or else warned by burning of beacons and ringing of
bells awkward,” which alarm would only be given on sufficient
grounds[1494]. There is no record of any other business, and the council
seems to have broken up on Saturday 25 November.

The break up of the council at York was followed by an uneasy movement
through all the rebel country. Suffolk was alarmed by a report that the
beacons of Holderness, Howden and Marshland were burned on Thursday and
Friday, 23 and 24 November, and that musters were being held
there[1495]. Sir Ralph Ellerker returned to Hull on or before Sunday 26
November, and the garrison tried to stop the communication which had
been established between Hull and Grimsby[1496]. On the night of 28
November armed men with their faces blackened went round the parish of
Chorley in Lancashire, under the leadership of John the Piper, and
forced the inhabitants to take the oath to God, the King and the
commons[1497]. Lord Monteagle could not collect his rents in Kendal, and
arrested a vicar who spoke in favour of the rebellion[1498].

While the council at York was sitting Norfolk and Fitzwilliam were
inspecting the lines of defence prepared by the royal troops. Their
arrangement was as follows:

Gonson was in command at Grimsby, and Sir Anthony Browne at Barton, with
his men disposed along the Trent from Barton to Gainsborough[1499]. Sir
Brian Hastings held Doncaster, and had fortified the bridge, while on 22
November the Earl of Rutland sent Sir Nicholas Sturley with six pieces
of ordnance, 100 men and gunners to occupy Tickhill Castle, five miles
south of Doncaster. Shrewsbury had made sure of Rotherham, as the idea
of fortifying Derby had been given up[1500].

Suffolk and his staff were at Lincoln. The Duke occupied the Dean’s
house, and in the Cathedral was the harness which had been collected
from the Lincolnshire rebels. In the castle were about 140 prisoners,
several of whom had been saved from execution by the truce. The villages
along the Humber and the Trent were occupied, and the boats had been
collected so that they might be instantly destroyed if there was an
alarm. The council, that is probably Suffolk’s council, had resolved to
build a tower on a hill between Lincoln and the Trent[1501].

The captains at Newark were Sir Francis Brian and Sir John Russell with
700 men. This was also Richard Cromwell’s post, but he had been sent up
to the King. The castle was supplied with ordnance, and the people of
the neighbourhood had been ordered to bring in a certain quantity of
grain from each township. They were submissive and feared Lord Borough
and the Lincolnshire captains. The bridge was being fortified, and a
drawbridge over the Trent was being built at Muskham, a village to the
south of Newark, but the river was very shallow and difficult to defend,
except when the floods were out[1502]. After the wet October, the
weather was better about the middle of November and the water fell. The
castle would only hold 100 men and had no supply of water[1503].

At Nottingham the castle was held by the Earl of Rutland with four or
five hundred men, and the gentlemen of the neighbourhood, who sat in
council with him weekly. It was provisioned and supplied with corn in
the same way as Newark. Rutland had built a new drawbridge and
fortifications. The country people were loyal[1504]. The castle was well
supplied with ordnance, but more gunners and powder were needed, as
Suffolk and Shrewsbury were always sending for powder, which Rutland
could ill spare[1505].

All the royal commanders were constantly writing for money, but a fairly
adequate supply was now forthcoming[1506], though the King was so
anxious to be economical that John Henneage received orders to pay none
of the monastic pensions or debts in Lincolnshire except in very urgent
cases. On 27 November Suffolk remonstrated warmly against such an
impolitic means of saving. He would rather pay the pensions out of his
own pocket, he declared, if he had the money, than that the men of
Lincolnshire should be made to remember their late folly, and to suspect
that the charges of the suppressed houses would not be paid[1507]. Half
the debt was paid and the other half held over[1508].

When he despatched Ellerker and Bowes to the north, the King wrote to
Suffolk on 14 November that a free pardon might be proclaimed to all
Lincolnshire men except those who were in prison. Henry stated that he
was moved to this clemency by comparing the repentant demeanour of
Lincolnshire with the continued rebellion of Yorkshire. Part of the
weapons which had been collected might be restored to the most
trustworthy gentlemen, to distribute among men of approved loyalty, but
great care must be exercised in this. If Norfolk summoned Suffolk to be
present at Doncaster, he must leave Sir Francis Brian and Sir William
Parre as his deputies at Lincoln[1509]. Suffolk received these orders on
the 16th, and wrote back to report the position on the 18th. He begged
the King to appoint some place for storing the weapons which were not
given back; the orders as to fortifying Doncaster, Newark and other
places had been carried out, but Suffolk reminded the King that he had
only 3600 men to hold a river line of fifty miles[1510].

Such was the general disposition of the royal troops while the Pilgrims
were holding their council at York.

Norfolk and Fitzwilliam approached slowly. On Wednesday 22 November they
had reached Towcester and received news of the alarm caused by Sir Henry
Saville on the 19th. Norfolk wrote Darcy a letter of reproof for
“innovations attempted,” which he forgot to sign[1511], and it must have
given Darcy some small satisfaction to be able to point this out in his
reply of Sunday 26 November to “your letter, as I think by the seal, but
it is unsigned.” His reply contained only an assurance that the
disturbance was entirely due to Saville, and that he desired peace as
much as Norfolk[1512]. Darcy had written to Sir Brian Hastings as early
as 20 November to arrange for lodgings in Doncaster for the
conference[1513], but the King’s captains were surprised to hear a
rumour that he intended to bring 10,000 men there on Thursday 30
November and that 10,000 more were summoned to meet at Wakefield on the
following Monday[1514].

Norfolk and Fitzwilliam reached Leicester on Friday 24 November, where
they received the letter which had been drawn up by the council at York
on the 22nd[1515]. They despatched a copy of it to Suffolk[1516] and
sent the original to the King, who replied to it on Monday 27
November[1517].

Henry’s answer is one of those documents which fill the reader with
reluctant admiration and reveal the secret of his constant success. It
shows the attitude which the King had deliberately assumed towards the
rebellion. According to his version of the event, a few unscrupulous
persons had misled the commons of Yorkshire by false stories about the
acts of the King’s parliament. The ignorant commons had thereupon risen
and forced the gentlemen to join them by threatening their lives. The
gentlemen, however, although they had taken the treasonable oath, had
succeeded in staying the commons, and after inducing them to disperse
quietly had sent two gentlemen to the King to explain their unwilling
treason and to sue for pardon. This the King was willing to grant to
them, in consideration of the ignorance of the commons and the force
used to the gentlemen, on condition that the seditious persons who had
first stirred up the tumult were taken and surrendered to the royal
justice. The chief of these seditious persons of course was Aske. Henry
put forward this account of the rising so consistently and so firmly
that he convinced not only his contemporaries but also his historians,
and it has been so universally accepted that it is necessary to consider
whether it is really true, and all the foregoing history a mere
exaggeration. The answer to this question is given by the preparations
against the rebels which have just been described. Henry was the last
man in the world to garrison a chain of forts from Grimsby to Nottingham
and to spend thousands of pounds on keeping an army under arms for two
months merely to suppress a trivial rising of discontented labourers.
The gravity of the situation was perfectly apparent to the King, but he
knew the value of telling a consistent and dignified story, not only to
foreign courts and to the south, where news came so slowly and
uncertainly that the King’s account was sure to be accepted, but even to
the rebels themselves. It is difficult at all times to believe that a
clear, firm statement is a deliberate lie, and it was particularly
difficult for the northern gentlemen to believe that the King was lying.
The whole tone of the King’s letter was such as to make the gentlemen
feel small and ashamed of themselves, and yet to suggest that if only
they would be sensible and come up to the King, as any reasonable person
would do, they might still be safe and recover their self-respect.

Henry began by marvelling at the expressions used in their last letter,
which sounded almost as if they made themselves a party with the
commons. As for their complaint that he had broken the truce by
attempting to send letters and money to Scarborough, he did not even
condescend to reply to it directly. Of course the King must be at full
liberty to send anything he pleased to any of his subjects at any time
or place.

He went on to declare that he would not send Norfolk and Fitzwilliam to
the Pilgrims until he was better assured of their loyalty. Now the
Pilgrims did not want Norfolk to come before 5 December; until then they
would have been much better pleased if he had stayed with the King. But
Henry contrived to put his threat in such a way that the readers of the
letter would probably never think of that, and would feel that Norfolk
really must be allowed to continue his journey if possible.

In the third place Henry remonstrated against the suggestion that his
own subjects, resorting to the man appointed as his deputy, should
require a safeconduct, a neutral meeting-place, a special truce and
hostages. It was not like subjects petitioning their king, but like a
war between princes. They were perfectly mad to make such a demand, and
if they were not careful he would take measures to cut them off as
corrupt members.

In the fourth place, Henry “thought no little shame” that the northern
gentlemen allowed “such a villain as Aske” to subscribe their letter
before them all. Aske was “a common pedlar in the law,” whose “filed
tongue and false surmises have ... brought him in this unfitting
estimation among you.” In the opinion of Henry and all his nobles the
honour of the gentlemen was greatly touched in that they had allowed
such a thing.

This was the boldest and cleverest stroke in the whole letter. The
gentlemen complained that the King’s minister Cromwell was base-born and
not fit to sit on the royal council. The King retorted that their leader
was a villain, that is, not a scoundrel in the modern sense, but a
villein or serf, a man born unfree. Henry’s accusation was quite
groundless; Aske’s family was armigerous, and he was cousin to half the
gentlemen in Yorkshire. Nevertheless the King’s assertion was likely to
do almost as much harm as if it had been true. The grand captain was
regarded with jealousy by many gentlemen who had not the courage to hold
his post, and if the King told them that their honour was touched in
following him, then it must be touched; the King must know best.

Finally Henry closed his letter by declaring that in spite of everything
he would still be merciful. If the Pilgrims would permit free recourse
to the King on the part of his subjects, withdraw from the castles and
towns they were holding, send the ship that they had taken to Evers, and
“show their submission by deeds,” _i.e._ by surrendering Aske to the
King, he would perhaps be graciously pleased to pardon them, though he
did not actually promise to do so, but if they did not do all this
immediately then he did not intend that Norfolk should “common with them
further.”[1518]

Though he took this high tone in writing to the Pilgrims themselves,
Henry did not neglect other precautions. He instructed Norfolk to make
sure of Doncaster and Rotherham[1519], and told Suffolk that he might
promise pardons to the gentlemen of Marshland who had entered into
communication with him[1520]. On receiving a copy of the Pilgrims’
letter, Suffolk had written to the King in great alarm to excuse himself
from any complicity in the despatch of Waters to Scarborough[1521], but
Henry was quite prepared to pass over that incident and did not even
refer to it. As he believed that Sir Robert Constable was still at York,
he ordered Suffolk to practise with the townsfolk of Hull, in order that
the town might be seized at the first favourable opportunity[1522].

Other measures were also taken. The royal spies in the north endeavoured
to frighten the commons by spreading reports that the Emperor and the
King of France were coming to help Henry, each with 40,000 men, and by
exaggerating the number of the musters at Ampthill. They reported that
the commons were in great dread of the King’s ordnance, having little of
their own[1523].

As it was the religious grievances which made the rising so threatening,
the King proceeded to demonstrate his orthodoxy in the usual way, by
persecuting the heretics. “This year, 12 November, being Sunday, there
was a priest bore a faggot at Paul’s Cross standing in his surplice for
heresy, which priest did celebrate at his mass with ale.”[1524] On 17
November Barnes was imprisoned in the Tower, and Field, Marshall,
Goodall and “another of that sort of learning,” probably Rastell, were
all arrested[1525]. John Bale was examined on 19 November concerning
certain heretical doctrines which he was accused of preaching. The
interrogatories put to him have not been preserved, but one of his
answers might have been laid to heart by the inquisitors of all
religious parties; he said that “he would fain know of his accusers who
is so familiar with God as may know that secret point?”[1526] Field and
Rastell appear to have been examined at the same time[1527].

On 19 November Henry issued a circular to his bishops. It was drawn up
in two forms, one for heretical bishops, reproving them for their
offences, the other, for those who had not gone so far, cautioning them
as to their behaviour. The bishops were ordered to explain personally
the King’s Articles to their flocks, to preach passive obedience to the
King, to observe and maintain all laudable ceremonies, and to prevent
all unlicensed preaching and contemptuous words about usages and
ceremonies[1528]. Several little tracts on the advantages of peace and
the duty of obeying the King were also circulated, and the King’s reply
to the Lincolnshire rebels was printed and issued[1529].

An allusion has already been made to the report that Henry would receive
help from abroad. A marriage between Mary and the Duke of Angoulême, now
Orleans, had long been hinted at by the French and English ambassadors
at the respective courts. On 11 October 1536 Henry wrote to Gardiner and
Wallop, his ambassadors in France, that they were not to allow it to
appear that he desired the match, but were to induce the French to make
all the advances[1530].

In the same letter he mentioned the rising in Lincolnshire, but treated
it very lightly[1531]. On 5 November he wrote again to declare that the
reports of the insurrection were very much exaggerated, that it was all
over, and the two shires of York and Lincoln lay entirely at his mercy.
Pomeroy had arrived from France to treat of the marriage of Mary and
Angoulême, but Henry was not satisfied with the form of his credentials,
which he considered too unceremonious. He had referred the ambassador to
the Council, and intended to give him no certain answer[1532].

On 10 November the Imperial ambassador was informed that the Council was
considering the French match and that Francis was so anxious to bring it
about that he was willing to consent if Mary were only declared the
King’s heir in default of legitimate issue, and given a title and an
income. The Emperor had been proposing a marriage between Mary and Don
Luis of Portugal, which Mary herself would have preferred. The
negotiations with France were used to bring the Imperial ambassador to
the point of making a formal proposal for her hand, and on 23 November
Chapuys wrote to ask for instructions, as Mary informed him that Francis
had offered to settle an income of 80,000 ducats on her marriage with
Angoulême, but her father still made little of the proposal[1533]. So
long as Henry could tantalize both monarchs with the offer of Mary’s
hand, he knew he need not fear that either of them would help the
rebels.

Such were the King’s measures of precaution; to which may be added the
vigilant watch kept upon the southern counties, to repress the first
signs of disaffection. William Constable, Sir Robert’s son, who was
wandering about the country with his schoolmaster, was arrested at Stowe
in November[1534], and afterwards detained at Ross in the Christmas
holidays[1535]. Two men were arrested and examined in London because
they came from Louth[1536], and information was received against another
Lincolnshire man, who was said to have used seditious language at
Fittleworth in Sussex[1537]. Norfolk’s complaint that he could not trust
his soldiers receives some confirmation from reports of the musters in
Kent and in Suffolk, where some of the men were heard to declare that
the northern men had right on their side and that they themselves would
not fight against the rebels[1538]. On 22 November a pedlar was
committed to Canterbury gaol for spreading sedition[1539]. From time to
time a bold parish priest ventured to express his sympathy with the
rebels. On 26 October the parson of Wimborne, Dorset, “preached
purgatory.”[1540] In the Isle of Wight on 11 November the vicar of
Thorley denied the royal supremacy[1541], and the parson of Wickham in
Hampshire fled from an accusation of sedition[1542]. The parson of
Radwell in Hertford preached against the suppression of the abbeys in
November[1543].

On 19 October Bishop Latimer sent to Cromwell copies of some ancient
Latin verses, containing a lament over the oppression of the Church, and
also some fantastic prophecies. The Bishop remarked that he sent them
because he knew that Cromwell loved antiquities, and that the bearer
would explain how some people expounded the lines[1544]. These were no
doubt some of the prophecies which were being circulated by Cromwell’s
opponents[1545]. A man was imprisoned at Bath on 20 October for
repeating a prophecy, although he protested that he did not know its
meaning[1546], and another was accused in December of speaking against
Cromwell at the Antelope inn in Worcester[1547].

During the time of the insurrection Cromwell kept himself a good deal in
the background, for the hatred he inspired was as strong a bond between
gentlemen and commons as religious enthusiasm. He was as much in favour
with the King as ever, and was always within reach of the court, but he
did not reside there[1548]. He was in London when Bowes and Ellerker
were with the King at Windsor, and Cresswell had not seen him at court
for two days together[1549]. On 21 November the King was at Richmond,
and Cromwell still was not with him[1550], but his absence did not
deceive the watchful eyes which were upon him. The Pilgrims had friends
in the south who were able to send them information on such points. One
of these secret friends came to Aske after the council at York. He found
the captain sick of a “severe colic,” which prevented him from riding to
Templehurst, as he had intended to do after the council. The secret
friend, whose name is unknown, reported that the King was at Richmond,
and “Cromwell only the ruler about him.” Cromwell was more bitterly
hated than ever, and the south parts longed for the coming of the
Pilgrims, but they must be on their guard, for on Thursday 23 November
ten ships of war took ordnance from the Tower, and it was said that
Suffolk was advancing with 20,000 men. Aske was not sure whether to
believe the last news, but he considered it a suspicious circumstance
that Sir Anthony Browne had occupied Doncaster. He wrote to ask Darcy to
remonstrate about the fortification of Doncaster Bridge and to watch
Ferrybridge and Pontefract[1551].

Not only did the rebels receive news from the south but in spite of all
precautions on the part of the government the rebel manifestoes found
their way southward, and even one copy could travel far and quickly.
Richard Fletcher, the gaoler of Norwich, was at Lynn on Sunday 29
October, and there met some of Norfolk’s disbanded troops. One of these
men, who was the clerk of Mr Fermor, son and heir of Sir Harry Fermor,
gave Fletcher a bill to deliver to John Manne of Norwich; his story was
that his master had been given this bill by the Duke of Norfolk.
Fletcher supped at the Bell at Lynn, and by the desire of the company
the bill was read aloud. The goodman of the inn, George Wharton, was so
much struck by its contents that he caused one of Fletcher’s prisoners
to make two copies of it. It seems in fact to have been Aske’s second
manifesto. When Fletcher reached Norwich he showed the bill to several
people including the Mayor, Mr Fermor, who “marvelled that such a bill
should be suffered to go abroad,” but did not attempt to suppress it.
Fletcher delivered the original to John Manne, but kept a copy for
himself, which he continued to show to his friends. At length he went up
to London, and while there Leonard Stanger, servant to Mr Willoughby,
saw the bill and “said it was naught and took it away to burn it.”
Meanwhile George Wharton of the Bell at Lynn gave one of his copies of
the bill to some Cornish soldiers who were coming from the north on a
pilgrimage to Walsingham. This gift may have had curious results[1552].
His other copy he lent out among his neighbours[1553]. At Templehurst on
18 November Aske was heard to say that he had given a copy of the oath
to a gentleman of Norfolk, who would forward the matter in the
south[1554].

Another manifesto which had probably been going about the country for
some time was taken at Bromsgrove, Worcester, on 12 December[1555]. A
fourth was circulating in a higher rank of society. On Sunday 19
November Sir George Throgmorton attended the morning sermon at St
Paul’s, and there met his friend Sir John Clarke. After the sermon they
dined together at the Horse Head in Cheapside, and when the goodman and
his wife had left the room the two gentlemen began to discuss the rising
in the north. Sir George had read the King’s printed reply to the
Lincolnshire rebels, but he did not know what the Yorkshiremen demanded.
Sir John promised to let him see a copy of their articles[1556]. They
walked back to St Paul’s together and parted, and that night Sir John’s
servant brought Throgmorton a copy of the Pilgrims’ oath, the five
articles, and one of Aske’s proclamations[1557].

A few nights later Sir George Throgmorton supped at the Queen’s Head in
Fleet Street betwixt the Temple gates[1558]. At this inn there was an
informal club of lawyers and members of parliament, who, if they had
dared to say so, were in opposition to the government[1559]. On this
particular evening Sir George met another frequenter of the Queen’s
Head, Sir William Essex, and again the conversation turned on the
northern rebellion. Sir William was curious about the demands of the
Pilgrims, and Sir George sent his servant to find and bring back his
copy of the oath, etc., which he had “thrown into a window,” _i.e._ put
into the box under the window-seat. Sir William kept the papers for
several days, caused his servant to copy them, and returned them to
Throgmorton. After this Essex returned to his home near Reading. His own
copy of the papers he kept carefully put away, but his chamber-boy,
Geoffrey Gunter, who had copied them for him, had also made another copy
for himself[1560]. Geoffrey Gunter was not discreet. He lent his copy to
William Wyre, the host of the Cardinal’s Inn at Reading, and within a
week there were several copies circulating in the town. Richard Snow,
vicar of St Giles, obtained one and Richard Turner another, but they
were uneasy about the matter, and on 30 November they gave their copies
to the bailiff and the serjeant of Reading, to be laid before the
magistrates of the town. The justices on 2 December examined all the
parties in Reading, and sent their replies to Cromwell[1561]. They were
all summoned to London immediately. On their way they met Sir George
Throgmorton, who was going to visit Sir William Essex. He was told about
the affair, and although he tried to make light of it, saying that
everybody in London was reading the rebels’ articles and Aske’s letters,
yet secretly he was very much disturbed, and burnt his copy. Sir William
Essex, who had burnt his also, was almost ill with anxiety, and on
receiving orders to examine Gunter and send him up to London, Essex set
out to throw himself upon the King’s mercy. Throgmorton, hearing nothing
from him, followed him up to London, only to find that Essex was in the
Tower and that he himself must join him there[1562]. In January 1537
they were still prisoners, and it was thought that the charges against
them were very grave[1563], but towards the end of the month they were
released[1564]. It does not appear whether Sir John Clarke was ever
called to account for his share of the business.

The presence of secret friends of the Pilgrims in the south was more
alarming than the mutterings of discontent among the peasantry. They
might be found anywhere, in the army, at court, in the King’s Council.
Henry never more than half believed Norfolk’s reports of the rebels’
strength, because he knew that the Duke secretly sympathised with the
enemy. But though that altered the direction of Henry’s fears, it did
not allay them, for a king is in a dangerous position when he cannot
trust his own commander-in-chief. There were continual rumours that
Norfolk had either gone over to the Pilgrims or allowed himself to be
taken by them[1565]. He himself said that he could not trust his
men[1566], and there was even a story that one of the soldiers had
attacked him with a dagger[1567]. The loyalty of the Marquis of Exeter,
who was sent with Norfolk and Shrewsbury against the rebels[1568], was
still more doubtful than that of Norfolk. He held his command, however,
until the first appointment at Doncaster[1569], and offered to advance
the King money for the payment of his men[1570]. As soon as he was ready
to set out in the first instance, he was stopped by a countermand[1571],
and when he did start, on 18 October, he was behind Norfolk, who
contrived to obtain all the money sent down from the Treasury. On 21
October Exeter had “not a penny to convey himself and his train toward
my lord Steward.”[1572] Money was sent to him at Ampthill on 23
October[1573]. He joined Norfolk in the end[1574], but he took very
little part in the campaign[1575]. When the truce was made he returned
to court, where his wife had been in waiting on the Queen since the
middle of October[1576]. As a reward for his services he received a
grant of the dissolved priory of Breamore on 9 November[1577]. Reginald
Pole’s brothers, Lord Montague and Sir Geoffrey Pole, were ordered to
provide men at the beginning of the rebellion, and Montague was to
attend on the King’s own person[1578].

A little more light is thrown on the mystery of the Pilgrims’ southern
correspondents by a letter from Chapuys to Charles V, which was
despatched on 22 November. It is in the form of a journal, written from
day to day from the beginning of the month. His earliest news was that
the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquis and others had gone to confer with the
rebels, and that if they had not wisely resolved on this step, the King
would have been in great danger. The ambassador’s informant was “one of
the principal gentlemen in the King’s army.” Chapuys next heard that
Norfolk had come up to court, both to justify his own action and to
forward the petitions of the northern men. Norfolk was bringing with him
two ambassadors from the rebels “Master Raphael Endecherche and Master
Dos.” Norfolk and the other noblemen “were all good Christians”; they
did not wish for a battle, and showed as openly as they dared that they
thought the rebels had right on their side.

Chapuys gave a brief account of the rebels’ position. They were reported
to be 40,000 strong, and among them were 10,000 cavalry. They were in
good order, but required money and musketeers. Their banner was a
crucifix, and Lord Darcy and the Archbishop of York were with them.
Their numbers would probably increase, as the south parts sympathised
with them, and presently news came that another province (Cumberland and
Westmorland) had risen because the return of the ambassadors was
delayed. The lack of money might ruin everything, but this would be
remedied if the Pope sent Reginald Pole with supplies, and want of money
was not felt on one side only, for Henry had complained to Mary that the
insurrection had cost him £200,000.

When Ellerker and Bowes first arrived Chapuys heard that their articles
were:

  (1) that their petition might be authorised by Parliament,

  (2) that Parliaments might be held in the ancient way, and that all
  pensioners and government servants might be excluded,

  (3) that the Princess’ (Mary’s) affairs might be dealt with by
  Parliament,

  (4) that the King might not take money from his people except in time
  of war.

These articles were said to be signed by all the gentlemen. In the third
particular Chapuys was mistaken, but (1), (2), and (4) were all points
on which the rebels insisted, and later in the letter he mentioned that
he had been mistaken about (3); the rebels had not ventured to name
Mary, for fear the King did her harm.

Chapuys believed that the King would not give way, as he boasted that
the Duke of Orleans (Angoulême) was willing to marry Mary although she
was not legitimate, and that the King of France would help him with four
or five thousand men. Later Chapuys found that his conjecture was
correct. The King would not change anything that had been determined by
Parliament, and told the rebels that they had no right to meddle with
his Privy Council. Nevertheless the news of the fresh rising might force
him to alter his decision, and Norfolk was using his influence on the
Pilgrims’ side. Finally Bowes and Ellerker were sent back with no better
answer. “The King said he would rather lose his crown than be so limited
by his vassals.” Five or six ships were being prepared, and Henry
boasted that he would go against the rebels in person, but first he had
despatched Norfolk and Fitzwilliam to corrupt them by secret means if
possible. Chapuys, however, thought that it was more likely that the
King’s emissaries would go over to the rebels themselves.

Chapuys heard that Lord _Hussey_ had sent a message to the King that the
rebels were ready to fight, for they were a third more numerous than the
King’s troops, with provisions and money, and they expected the Emperor
to help them. “Hussey” is probably a mistake for “Darcy”; Chapuys had
great difficulty with English names, and his account of the message
seems to be derived from Darcy’s interview with Somerset Herald.

In a very interesting passage, Chapuys says that “among fifteen or
twenty articles which the northern ambassadors have proposed” there were
two which he thought unreasonable,—(1) that the King should give an
account of his expenditure, showing what had become of his father’s
treasure and of all the money he had obtained from the Church and by
taxation, and (2) that in cases of treason the criminal’s property
should not be confiscated, but should be restored to his heir, and that
the lands of Buckingham and others who had been executed should be thus
restored. Chapuys feared that if the King yielded on the main points,
the rebels might lose all by insisting on these or similar minor
details[1579]. The interesting point is that no detailed list of demands
had yet been drawn up by the rebels. They had only sent in the five
general articles, and did not think of going into particulars until the
King replied that their demands were “general, dark and obscure.” The
resolution to draw up a detailed list of grievances was taken at York on
21 November, and the list was not compiled until the council met at
Pontefract. Moreover, the complete articles do not contain either of the
two demands which Chapuys mentions.

Where then did the ambassador hear of the fifteen or twenty articles of
which these were two? The reference to the Duke of Buckingham suggests
that his informant was one of the Poles. The northern Pilgrims had no
particular interest in Buckingham, and the clause is not likely to have
been inserted in a northern petition, but if, as is possible, the Poles
were the secret friends who communicated with Aske, they may have drawn
up a list of their own complaints, shown it to Chapuys, and then sent it
north. There is one letter which may possibly be connected with this.
John Heliar, the vicar of East Meon in Hampshire, and rector of
Warblington, had fled to France some time before. Warblington was the
home of the Poles, and Heliar was their friend and dependent; Sir
Geoffrey Pole was accused of having aided his escape[1580]. On 21
December 1536, after the second conference at Doncaster, Richard
Langgrische, a priest, wrote from Havant, a town near Warblington, to Mr
Heliar beyond the seas: “I have been so far north since your being
beyond sea that I lacked messengers, but now having your servant ready
to bear my letters, I could no longer use unkind silence. I trust to
settle in my own country among my friends within a few years. Not that I
like the north so ill, but mine own country so well. Everyone desires
your prosperous return.”[1581] There is not much in this, only the fact
that a priest who lived in the same neighbourhood as the Poles, and knew
a self-exiled friend of theirs, had been in the north at the time of the
Pilgrimage, and was in hopes that better times were at hand. Still the
circumstances suggest that he may have been the messenger to the rebels.
This, however, is only a conjecture. Chapuys derived his information
partly from Mary, partly from a gentleman in the royal army, and partly
from someone at court who had good, but not first-hand, information. For
instance the informant cannot have had direct communication with Bowes
and Ellerker, or he would have known that their articles were not
signed, and that Mary was not mentioned; on the other hand, he reported
the general tone of the articles rightly, and corrected the mistake
about Mary. The identity of this informant, however, cannot be
discovered.

The Pilgrims were firmly convinced that they had the sympathy of Europe,
and in particular of the Emperor, who was very popular in England. In
order to trace the impression which the news of the rising made abroad,
it may be as well to recapitulate the various letters to and from the
ambassadors.

Henry was nominally the ally of Francis I, but relations between them
were strained at this time, as James V of Scotland had arrived in France
on 27 August 1536[1582] with the avowed intention of marrying a French
princess, although Henry was bitterly opposed to such a marriage. In his
letter of 11 October Henry instructed Gardiner and Wallop to make
themselves fully acquainted with the nature and qualities of the young
King[1583].

On 23 October the Bishop of Faenza, the papal nuncio in France, wrote to
Rome that the rising in England against the suppression of abbeys was so
serious that the King would probably be forced to yield. The passages
from England had been closed, and it was difficult to get news, but this
showed how grave the situation must be. James V was winning favourable
opinions everywhere, and was to marry Francis’ daughter Madeleine.
Cardinal du Bellay suggested that by means of this marriage Francis
might be influenced to act against Henry, who was very unpopular among
the French nobles[1584]. Du Bellay had a correspondent in London who on
24 October sent news that the Lincolnshire rebels had dispersed, but
that there was a much more serious rising in Yorkshire[1585]. After this
no further news reached France for some time. The Bishop of Faenza
believed that Henry was purposely preventing communications for fear the
King of Scotland should learn the extent of the insurrection[1586]. On 3
November there was a rumour that Henry himself was besieged in a
castle[1587]. The Pope wrote to Francis I on 7 November to congratulate
him on the Scots marriage and to exhort him not to help Henry against
the rebels[1588]. It was known in France on 19 November that Henry was
negotiating with the rebels, and James V sent civil messages to the
Pope, promising to serve him if possible[1589].

The betrothal of Madeleine de Valois to James V took place on 26
November[1590]. The papal nuncio was delighted. He reported that Francis
and James were both ready and even anxious to act against Henry.
Francis, however, said that the disturbances in England were now at an
end; nevertheless he would let Faenza know when the time came to
move[1591]. James was very affable to the nuncio, but treated the
English ambassadors with marked coldness. Du Bellay was in hopes that
the time had almost arrived to strike at Henry. The movement in England
had been premature and without a leader, but though it was now pacified,
the malcontents would rise again at the summons of the King of
Scotland[1592]. On 28 November Faenza sent to the Pope further
professions of James’ goodwill, and his readiness to act against his
uncle[1593], and on 29 November he reported that James was entering into
negotiations for a treaty with Denmark which would be very prejudicial
to Henry[1594].

From all this it appears that Francis was ready to turn against Henry if
he dared, but he was afraid of precipitating an alliance between England
and the Emperor. Faenza suggested that to prevent this the Pope might
excommunicate Henry, and make it impossible for anyone to become his
ally openly[1595]. The party in the French court which was hostile to
Henry and the papal nuncio himself built great hopes on James. They did
not realise that there was no other prince in Christendom whose
interference in English affairs would not have been preferred by the
most ardent Pilgrim to that of James V. Of all Henry’s reproaches to the
rebels the one which had most effect was that they were exposing their
country to the danger of a Scots invasion[1596], and reports were spread
by the royalists that the Scots were mustering on the borders[1597]. The
Pilgrims professed themselves willing to help the King against the Scots
at any time[1598], and an attempt on James’ part would have strengthened
Henry by rallying the whole kingdom to his side against their ancient
enemies.

The Imperial ambassador in England watched the progress of events with
no less interest than the French. His reports have already been quoted,
and need only be mentioned briefly. In his despatch on 7 October Chapuys
alluded to the Lincolnshire rising, which he believed to be more
threatening than the King would admit[1599]. His despatch was sent to
the Emperor at Genoa[1600]. Next day he wrote to the Count of Cifuentes,
the Imperial ambassador at Rome, chiefly about Mary’s affairs; at the
end of his letter he alluded to the rising, but thought it might turn
out to be nothing after all[1601]. On 14 October he reported to the
Empress that there was certainly a rebellion, and from the King’s
preparations it seemed to be a great one, but he still had no certain
information[1602]. The next day, apparently, he had obtained
information, and sent his nephew with an elaborate account of the whole
affair to the Regent of the Netherlands, advising her to help the
rebels[1603]. By this time negotiations for peace had been opened
between Charles and Francis, but the project proceeded slowly, though
the Pope was very anxious to reconcile them, in order that they might
unite against Henry[1604].

The Regent of the Netherlands sent to Calais for news on 24 October, and
professed her willingness to help Henry against the rebels[1605]. Lord
Lisle, as in duty bound, replied before 28 October that the disturbances
were ended[1606], and on 6 November received congratulations from the
Netherlands on the restoration of peace in England[1607]. These
professions of friendship did not receive much credit in England. John
Hutton, the English agent at Brussels, wrote to Cromwell on 9 December
that “there is large talking of the rebellions in England.”[1608]
Cromwell ordered him to buy “500 pair of Almain rivets,” but the
Regent’s Council refused to license the export of harness, giving the
excuse that the Emperor needed all that could be procured. Cromwell was
afraid that the rebels were procuring arms from the Low Countries, but
Hutton assured him that they could not obtain much, as the Regent was
favourable to Henry, and the customs officers were so strict that it
would be difficult to smuggle weapons. Three ships had sailed from
Zeeland for Newcastle-upon-Tyne in November which might have carried
arms, but there was only one Newcastle vessel at Antwerp on 13 December,
with some men from Newcastle and York, and one from Hull. Hutton
promised to take care that she carried nothing for the rebels[1609].
There is no evidence to prove that the Pilgrims obtained any armour from
the Netherlands, but when William Morland entered Sir Robert Constable’s
service at Hull his master gave him a pair of Almain rivets, which he
wore when he carried Sir Robert’s banner[1610].

On 22 November Chapuys despatched from England the full account of the
Pilgrimage which has been described above[1611], and on 24 November it
was noted on one of the Emperor’s despatches that the rebels in England
had dispersed only after obtaining terms which were disgraceful to the
King[1612]. Charles V, however, refused to move at all in the matter,
either for or against the Pilgrims[1613].

The persons to whom the rising was of the greatest importance were the
Pope and Reginald Pole. At the beginning of October Paul III summoned
Pole to Rome, and, in spite of Henry’s positive prohibition, Pole
obeyed. He was at Sienna on his way there on 10 October[1614]. On his
arrival he was lodged at the Vatican, and was treated most kindly by the
Pope[1615]. It is exceedingly difficult to calculate how long it took
for news to travel from England to Rome, but it seems probable that when
Pole arrived some account of the Lincolnshire insurrection had been
received there, as the Bishop of Faenza wrote on 1 November to Ambrogio,
the Pope’s secretary, alluding to the rising as something of which they
both had knowledge[1616], and on 6 November Dr Pedro Ortiz reported to
the Empress that a letter had come from the Regent of the Netherlands
with news that the rebels numbered 30,000 to 40,000 men[1617]. This was
probably taken from Eustace Chapuys’ letter of 15 October[1618].

When he heard this news, Reginald Pole cannot have failed to see that a
great opportunity lay before him. The question was how to use it for the
good of the Church. In circumstances not apparently so favourable Henry
of Richmond had invaded England, defeated the King, married the rightful
heiress, and established his dynasty upon the throne. If Pole had been a
man of that type, he would have procured letters of censure upon Henry
from the Pope, together with all the money he could raise, and would
have embarked for England at once. But Pole’s was no ignoble personal
ambition, and, although he was not yet ordained, all his hopes and
interests were bound up in the Church of Rome. Though he abstained from
taking the vows of celibacy for many years, and was thus free to wed
Mary if necessary, he never seems to have looked upon the hypothetical
marriage as anything but a disagreeable duty which he might be called
upon to perform for the good of the Church. As far as he himself was
concerned he desired no part in the government of England.

Pole was no adventurer, but he was also no crusader. His heart did not
leap up at the call to arms. He did not say to himself, “My countrymen
are prepared to fight and die for the True Faith. I must be by their
side.” His idea of his own mission was that of a highly honoured
ecclesiastic, returning, fully accredited, amidst the most respectful
enthusiasm, to his native land to reconcile to a gracious Pope a deeply
penitent monarch and a humbly joyful nation. His dream at last came
true, but the Lincolnshire rising gave no immediate prospect of its
fulfilment. In deciding whether or no to join the rebels, Pole was
really forced to choose between his opinions and his prejudices. He had
himself stated in his book that he believed subjects were sometimes
justified in rebelling against their sovereign, and that Englishmen
would in fact be justified in rebelling against Henry. But that was a
strange and terrible opinion, which he had expressed more to frighten
Henry than for any other reason. The book was kept a dead secret, and
only his most intimate friends knew its contents. It was all very well
to write such things in a book, but if it came to putting his theories
into practice, he would be obliged to steal back to England secretly, in
constant fear of arrest, to go marching about in the mud with a mob of
undisciplined commons, to hold councils with their boorish leaders in
unknown provincial towns; and in doing all this he would be acting
openly and avowedly against Henry, the theologian, the musician, his own
cousin and early patron. The idea was revolting to Pole, who was an
aristocrat to his finger-tips. Accordingly he simply remained in Rome,
awaiting developments.

When Paul III first heard of the rebellion he was anxious to take
advantage of it. On 7 November he wrote to exhort Francis I to unite
with other Christian kings against Henry[1619], and about the same time
the suggestion was made that Pole should be created a cardinal. The news
of this proposal reached England on 18 November, and was received by
Henry with the utmost indignation. Starkey wrote to Pole in the King’s
name and in the most positive terms forbade him to accept such
promotion[1620]. But Pole seems to have refused before the prohibition
could have reached him. Perhaps the above suggestions as to his feelings
are not wholly just, and his real reason for declining to stir may have
done his heart more credit. His mother and brothers were in Henry’s
power, and he knew that any movement on his part might endanger their
lives. Accordingly he declined the honour which the Pope proposed to
bestow upon him expressly on account of his family[1621]. Pole did not
realise that he had already endangered their lives to such an extent
that only the most vigorous action could save them. Henry would never
forgive “De Unitate Ecclesiastica” and Pole’s journey to Rome.
Henceforward the King would bide his time, but in the end he would
strike. The unfortunate Poles did not perceive this. They still thought
that they had not gone too far for pardon, and thus, fearing to injure
them, Reginald Pole lost the last chance of saving the lives of his
nearest relatives.

On 21 November it was reported in Rome that the insurrection in England
was nearly pacified, and that Henry had marched against the rebels in
person[1622]. This referred, however, only to the Lincolnshire rising.
Chapuys knew as early as 14 November that the Pope was thinking of
sending Reginald Pole to England, and the ambassador encouraged the idea
warmly[1623].

On 24 November Cifuentes, the Imperial ambassador at Rome, told the Pope
that according to despatches from England, part of the rebels had been
crushed, and the rest were dispersing for want of a leader[1624]. The
Pope replied that he had had a letter from France, dated 3
November[1625], from which it appeared that the rebels were holding
their own, and that they had a leader whose name ended in “folc”
(Norfolk). The Pope also said that he had sent the rebels money by means
of a secret go-between in Picardy. There is no further record of this
money. Perhaps the secret Picard stole it. At this time there was a
rumour that the bull of privation against Henry VIII had been printed.
It was not published in Rome, but it was suspected that the Pope
intended to send it secretly to England[1626].

On 26 November Faenza wrote that the insurrection in England was
appeased, and that Pole could not go there now without manifest danger,
but he ought to be in readiness, for it would be well to send him as
soon as fresh disturbances arose, the people held him in so much esteem.
Faenza proposed that Pole’s writings should be disseminated in England
to encourage people in the true faith[1627]. The letter was sent from
Paris, and cannot have reached Rome until at least a week after the date
of writing. In the meanwhile, on 29 November a letter arrived at Rome
from England which was dated 10 November. It does not appear who wrote
it, but it contained the news that there were seventy or eighty thousand
of the rebels, that the King’s troops were disaffected, and that the
leaders on both sides had determined to treat. Three honoured persons
were sent from the rebels to the King, hostages being given for them,
and they laid before him their demands:

  (1) that the Pope should be acknowledged supreme head of the Church;

  (2) that Queen Katharine’s marriage should be declared valid and Mary
  proclaimed the legitimate heir to the throne;

  (3) that the abbeys should not be suppressed;

  (4) that recent statutes should be repealed;

  (5) that Parliaments should be held as of old, without pensioners or
  placemen.

It was believed that the King would be compelled to grant these demands,
although he was very reluctant to do so[1628]. Naturally this news
caused the greatest rejoicing in Rome. Next day arrived letters dated 12
November from the Regent of the Netherlands, in which it was reported
that Henry had quelled the first rebellion by sending the Duke of
Norfolk to the rebels with a promise of a general pardon, but that when
the insurgents had dispersed, the King seized and executed fifty of the
ringleaders. This caused a much greater insurrection all over the
island, and the Duke of Norfolk, indignant at the King’s breach of
faith, had joined the rebels, who had seized several towns and forced
the King to fly to London[1629]. It is interesting to see how distorted
the facts at the base of this spirited narrative have become as they
passed from mouth to mouth.

A more sober version of events came from France in a letter announcing
the betrothal of James V and Madeleine de Valois. In this it was said
that the rebels in England were negotiating with Henry, and that the
rising was practically at an end[1630]. There was a story afloat on 16
December that the King of England had consented to James’ marriage while
the rebels were in arms, but that as soon as they dispersed he had
written to forbid it, though his letter did not arrive until after the
betrothal had taken place[1631]. As a matter of fact Henry’s consent had
never been asked, and the rebels had not interested themselves in the
subject. The satisfactory tidings from England and France encouraged the
Pope to make an effort himself. Pole’s hesitation was overcome, and on
22 December, 1536, he was made a cardinal[1632].

It is clear from these despatches that foreign courts were bewildered
between the English ambassadors’ assurances that the rebellion was of no
importance, on the one hand, and, on the other, the exaggerated
successes attributed to the Pilgrims in the letters which from time to
time eluded Henry’s vigilance.

It is plain that neither Francis nor Charles had any real intention of
moving in the matter, Francis because he was still half-tempted by the
marriage between Mary and Orleans, and because in any case he would only
act through Scotland, Charles because he was afraid of precipitating
Mary’s French marriage, and because he was exhausted by his disastrous
Italian campaign.

The Pope was half inclined to take action, and any encouragement from
him might really have had a good effect on the rebels, but there was no
one to advise him as to the measures which he ought to take. Pole,
having twice defied Henry, did no more, and the precious time was
allowed to slip away. If Pole had accepted the Pope’s first offer of the
cardinalate he might have been in England by the time the news of the
offer reached the King on 18 November, for it was easy then to travel as
fast as a letter. Pole might have filled the pulpit at Pontefract in
which Archbishop Lee proved so ignominious a failure. His presence could
not, of course, have prevented the Reformation, but might have altered
its whole progress in England, whether for better or for worse. But
these are mere fancies. He did not come.




                              CHAPTER XIV
                       THE COUNCIL AT PONTEFRACT


At the great council which was now approaching, the Pilgrims were
confronted by the very serious business of stating and justifying their
position. Obedience to the government in the sixteenth century was not
merely a theory or a convenience, as at the present day; it was a
fundamental duty. There were none of the methods of peaceful opposition
which are so common now. To resist the government meant civil war and
social anarchy—cattle driven, houses burnt, women ravished, men
slaughtered. The duty of non-resistance was the first principle of
self-preservation, and the Pilgrims were not fulfilling that duty. They
had risen in arms, and they were seriously anxious to show that they had
sufficient grounds for this desperate step. Their justification was that
the Church was in danger. The Church had always upheld the duty of
obedience to the secular government, with but one important reservation,
that the Pope had the power to release subjects from their allegiance if
the King’s conduct was such that to obey him was mortal sin. In the
opinion of Pope Paul III, the crisis in England entitled him to use this
extreme power. He had prepared a bull of deposition against Henry, but
he lacked courage to publish it. Though the people of England had heard
rumours of this bull, they knew nothing with certainty. The Pilgrimage
of Grace had lasted for two months without the smallest sign of approval
arriving from Rome.

It was of the utmost importance to the success of the movement that both
gentlemen and commons should be convinced of the justice of their cause,
for it was their unity in faith alone which held them together. As the
Pope made no sign, the leaders resolved to obtain the sanction of the
Church, if possible, from her chief representatives among themselves.

Even before the council at York, it had been proposed that the clergy of
the northern parts should be asked to define clearly the ancient faith
for which the Pilgrims had risen. After the truce at Doncaster, Aske
requested Archbishop Lee to make a “book of the spiritual promotions,”
but Lee did not reply[1633]. At York it was resolved that the spiritual
men of the north should be bidden to prepare themselves for an assembly
at Pontefract, where they were requested to declare their opinion
touching the faith[1634]. William Babthorpe took this order to the
Archbishop, who was very reluctant to obey such a summons. He tried to
persuade Sir Robert Constable to give him leave to remain at home, but
Sir Robert would only agree to this if he would send his opinion to the
council in writing. Shortly before the assembly at Pontefract Sir Ralph
Ellerker, Robert Bowes and William Babthorpe waited on the Archbishop
and told him that he was expected to draw up articles for the conference
with Norfolk; Lee was very much alarmed, though they explained that they
meant articles concerning the faith. He replied that he must first know
on what points the Pilgrims wished to consult the clergy, and Babthorpe
wrote to Aske for a statement of them, giving his own advice in the
letter.

Aske with unsuspecting candour sent the Archbishop an outline of the
articles which he thought should be considered[1635]. This list of
questions proposed to the clergy may be the one contained in an existing
document, without heading or signature[1636]. Most of the subjects
mentioned in it were afterwards discussed at Pontefract, but there was
one point of great importance which was not raised there. “If one oath
be made and after one other oath to the contrary, and by the latter oath
the party is sworn to repute and take the first oath void, whether it
may be so by [_spiritual_] law or not[1637]?”

This was a pressing question to most of the Pilgrims; nearly all, even
the commons, had taken an oath of allegiance to the King, and although
their new oath had been framed so that it should not directly contradict
the former one, they could not hide from themselves that its meaning was
very different. But this problem did not confront only the laymen. The
English bishops had all taken an oath of canonical obedience to the Pope
on their first installation, before the breach with Rome. The clergy had
sworn to obey the bishops in all lawful and canonical mandates, and to
oppose all heresies condemned by the Church. But in February 1535 the
bishops had made a solemn renunciation of any sort of obedience to the
Pope, and in June of the same year the oath of the clergy had been
altered to include a similar renunciation. In these cases also some
attempt had been made to avoid a direct contradiction of their first
oaths. The form laid before the bishops was not an oath, but a
renunciation. The clergy had not sworn to obey the Pope, but only to
obey their diocesans, who in turn obeyed the Pope[1638]. The parallel of
the Pilgrims’ case with that of the clergy was obvious, and might be so
inconvenient that it is no wonder they did not choose to argue the
point.

When he sent his list of questions, Aske referred them wholly to the
Archbishop as metropolitan[1639], and begged that the clergy should
determine the points “whereupon we may danger battle.” Lee assured
Cromwell that as soon as he read this he resolved to go to Pontefract,
in order that he might explain to the misguided people that they had
nothing to fight for, as the King had taken pains to have the faith
clearly set forth in the Ten Articles, with the consent of the bishops
and clergy[1640]. It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that he really
went because he found the Pilgrims were resolved to have either his
written or his spoken word, and it was easier to explain away the latter
than the former.

A letter was sent to all the northern clergy “that they should go a
procession every day and send their minds, out of Holy Scripture and the
four doctors of the Church, touching the commons’ petition.” Lee did not
admit that he had anything to do with this letter, though it was issued
in his name[1641].

The leading north-country divines were summoned in person; the less
important clergy were requested to send their opinions in writing[1642].
Grice brought one of these written opinions to Pontefract, probably from
a priest who lived near Wakefield[1643]. Hallam brought two others from
Watton. The alleged letter from the Archbishop was brought to Watton by
William Horskey, and the curate of Watton forwarded it to a bachelor of
divinity named Wade, who lived near by. When he received it Wade said
that there was not time before the meeting to deal with such a difficult
subject. The other theologians of the neighbourhood were not so
diffident. Thomas Asheton, a young monk of Watton Priory, wrote a paper
on the supremacy “comparing Peter and his apostles.” Dr Swinburne, who
lived thereabouts, also wrote out his opinion on the same subject[1644].

As early as Tuesday 28 November the Pilgrims had begun to assemble at
Pontefract, and Shrewsbury was alarmed by the report of their numbers.
Sir Anthony Browne was sent by Norfolk to guard the bridges at Doncaster
and Rotherham[1645]. On 30 November Darcy wrote from Templehurst to
Shrewsbury and Hastings to assure them that the meeting at Pontefract
had no other object than to draw up articles to lay before Norfolk, that
the truce should be observed, and that no treachery was intended at
Doncaster, but all earnestly hoped for peace[1646].

The leaders rode into Pontefract on Saturday, 2 December. Lord Darcy
took up his abode at the Castle; Aske went to the Priory, and Lord
Lumley to “Mr Henryson’s, the late mayor,” where he displayed the banner
of the Five Wounds[1647]. From all the districts concerned in the
Pilgrimage the “worshipful men” had been summoned, as well as a certain
number of yeomen and “well-horsed commoners.”[1648] These, with the
gentlemen’s servants, formed a picked force, which Norfolk had some
reason to regard with misgiving, especially as more came than were
summoned, a proof that the Pilgrims’ zeal had not cooled. The towns were
also represented. For York the lord mayor and his council had elected
Sir George Lawson, the sheriff of the city, and six burgesses, with
servants. They were given money for new coats, presumably of the city
livery, ranging in price from 6_s._ 6_d._ for Lawson’s to 2_s._ 4_d._
for the servants’. Their expenses were paid by the city which also
provided them with a tent and all other necessaries[1649]. With them
came Richard Bowyer, who was a burgess but not one of the chosen
delegates[1650]. The companies marched into Pontefract well harnessed
and bringing with them the latest achievement of military engineering, a
bridge “to shoot over any arm of the sea in this realm.” It was a device
which had been constructed by “one Diamond of Wakefield, a poor
man,”[1651] and must have been designed to make the Pilgrims independent
of the guarded bridges of the Don.

Early on this morning the leaders at Pontefract wrote to Norfolk and
Shrewsbury saying that as yet there were not above a hundred assembled
there, that they intended no treachery, and were awaiting the
safeconduct to treat with Norfolk. They expected the safeconduct to
arrive on Sunday, 3 December[1652].

The Pilgrims’ council at Pontefract seems to have sat only from
Saturday, 2 December to Monday, 4 December, 1536. Aske frequently
remarked that the time was very short for all the work that had to be
done.

Among those present were:

_Lords._ Scrope, Latimer, Conyers, Lumley, Darcy and Neville.

_Knights._ Robert Constable, James Strangways, Christopher Danby, Thomas
Hilton, William Constable, John Constable, Peter Vavasour, Ralph
Ellerker, Christopher Hilliard, Robert Neville, Oswald Wolsthrope,
Edward Gower, George Darcy, William Fairfax, Nicholas Fairfax, William
Mallory, Ralph Bulmer, William Bulmer, Stephen Hamerton, John Dawnye,
Richard Tempest, Thomas Johnson, Henry Gascoigne.

_Gentlemen._ Robert Bowes, Robert Chaloner, William Babthorpe[1653],
John Norton, Richard Norton, Roger Lassells, Mr Place, Mr Fulthorpe,
Richard Bowes, Delariver, Barton of Whenby, Richard Lassells, Mr Redman,
Hamerton, Mr Ralph Bulmer, Rither, Metham, Saltmarsh, Palmes, Aclom,
Rudston, Plumpton, Middleton, Mallory of Wothersome, Allerton[1654],
Marmaduke Neville[1655].

_Commons._ Robert Pullen, Nicholas Musgrave and six others from
Penrith[1656], William Collins and Brown from the borough of Kendal, Mr
Duckett, Edward Manser, Mr Strickland, Anthony Langthorn, John Ayrey and
Harry Bateman from the barony of Kendal[1657].

The only important captains who did not attend were Sir Thomas Percy,
who was busy in Northumberland, and Sir Thomas Tempest, who had caught a
chill “through being plunged in water in coming from York”; Tempest sent
an apology for his absence, and as the best proof of his good faith he
communicated his opinion on the various points to be considered to
Robert Bowes in writing[1658]; this was a length to which few of the
gentlemen would go, as it was making permanent evidence against
themselves.

It is not certain whereabouts in Pontefract the council was held, but
probably it was at the Priory.

The first business was to choose a certain number of gentlemen, who
should go to the Duke of Norfolk to lay before him the articles and to
bring back the safeconduct for the three hundred who were to treat with
the Duke[1659]. The procedure was as follows: the Herald was sent to the
Duke with the names of the first party, and brought back safeconducts
for them on Sunday, 3 December[1660]. The chosen gentlemen were Sir
Thomas Hilton, Sir William Constable, Sir Ralph Ellerker, Sir Ralph
Bulmer, Roger Lassells, Robert Bowes, Nicholas Rudston, John Norton,
William Babthorpe and Robert Chaloner, each with two servants[1661]. On
Monday, 4 December, they were to take the articles to Doncaster and
bring back the second safeconduct. On Tuesday, 5 December, the great
meeting was to take place, at which it was hoped the leaders on both
sides would be able to make a satisfactory treaty.

After the gentlemen had been chosen, and the Herald despatched with
their names, it was necessary to agree upon the articles. These had
already been prepared by Aske in consultation with Darcy and the other
leaders from lists of grievances brought in by the delegates, and from
opinions in writing contributed by Sir Thomas Tempest, Babthorpe,
Chaloner and others. Aske copied out the articles upon which they were
all agreed, and returned the writings to their owners[1662]. The list
thus compiled was laid before the full assembly. Each article was read
aloud, and when it was accepted the word “fiat” was written against
it[1663].

The articles may be divided into four groups, containing respectively:
I. Religious, II. Constitutional, III. Legal, IV. Economic Grievances.


I. RELIGIOUS GRIEVANCES.

  Article (1) “To have the heresies of Luther, Wyclif, Husse, Melangton,
  Elicampadus, Burcerus, Confessa Germanie, Apologia Melanctonis, the
  works of Tyndall, of Barnys, of Marshall, Raskell, Seynt Germayne and
  other such heresy of Anabaptist destroyed.”

The impressive list of heretics was probably drawn up from books which
Richard Bowyer laid before the council as being heretical[1664]. This
was merely a general article to which the King would certainly have
agreed, and therefore it does not require further discussion.

  (2) “The supremacy of the Church touching ‘_cura animarum_’ to be
  reserved to the See of Rome as before. The consecration of the bishops
  to be from him, without any first fruits or pensions to be paid to
  him, or else a reasonable pension for the outward defence for the
  Faith.”

This was an article of the greatest importance. It was on this point
that the papers brought in by Grice and Hallam had been written. Two
other papers on the same subject were put into Aske’s hand, as poor
men’s petitions. One, written in Latin, he gave to Archbishop Lee, but
he did not receive the other, which was in English, until the conference
was over[1665]. Sir Francis Bigod wrote down his views in a paper which
was a source of much future trouble[1666]. There also remain some
fragments of a list of Articles drawn up in the form of a petition to
the King, which was doubtless brought by some of the representatives to
Pontefract, although it cannot be ascertained from which district it
came[1667].

The number of papers on the question of the Supremacy shows what deep
feeling it aroused. Aske stated that every man grudged against the
Statute of Supremacy because it would cause England to be divided from
the universal Church[1668]. The council of the Pilgrims was ready to
petition that the Act might be annulled altogether, but Aske advised
them to insert the clause “touching _cura animarum_.”[1669] Even on this
point there were differences of opinion among the Pilgrims. It will be
remembered that the commons of Caistor in Lincolnshire had said that
they were ready to take the King for supreme head of the Church[1670].
Darcy did not consider that excluding the Pope from England was against
the Faith[1671], and Aske made it appear that both Darcy and Constable
agreed to include this among the articles at his own request[1672]. The
papal scandals of the last century and the growing spirit of nationality
made Henry’s proclamation of independence not altogether distasteful,
and there was a feeling that the authority of the Pope in England might
be limited in some way, if the King could come to an agreement with him
to preserve the unity of Christendom. The nameless petition accepted the
King’s title of “supreme head of the Church in that it may stand with
the law of Christ,” but complained that “heretics, bishops ... naughtily
understanding that term ... enforce your Grace through flattery and
blind fables to grant them commissions and authorities to exercise all
manner of jurisdiction as well against the laws of God as the authority
of those [_the Pope’s_] councils, and so to make acts in your
parliaments and convocations to annul all laws and the sequel that by
the laws of God, of the Church, and of these councils should be good
throughout all the world approved and admitted for laws.”[1673] In the
list of questions which may be Aske’s, it is suggested that “where his
Highness is recognised to be the supreme head of the Church of England,”
yet as he is a temporal man and the cure of souls and administration of
sacraments are spiritual, “whereof necessity must be one head,” and as
the Bishop of Rome is the most ancient bishop and has been admitted in
all realms to have such cure, it may please “our said sovereign lord” to
admit him head of spiritual matters, giving spiritual authority to the
archbishops of Canterbury and York, “so that the said bishop of Rome
have no further meddling[1674].”?

In after days a compromise on these lines was long a cherished dream of
the high church party in England, and if Henry would have allowed the
discussion of his title, such an arrangement might have been effected.

  (4)[1675] “The suppressed abbeys to be restored to their houses, lands
  and goods.”

Here lay the chief cause of the rebellion. Aske constantly maintained
that the suppression of the abbeys and the divisions among the preachers
were alone sufficient to have made the commons rise, apart from any
other real or imaginary grievances. The case for the monasteries was set
forth by Aske in the answer to an interrogatory which he wrote in the
Tower. The draft is hastily written, in some parts corrected, in others
scarcely grammatical, but the skilful use of words, and the swing and
balance of the sentences show that Henry had reason to fear Aske’s
“filed tongue”:

  “[As] to the statute of suppression, he did grudge against the same
  and so did all the whole country, because the abbeys in the north
  parts gave great alms to poor men and laudably served God; in which
  parts of late days they had but small comfort by ghostly teaching. And
  by occasion of the said suppression the divine service of almighty God
  is much minished, great number of masses unsaid, and the blessed
  consecration of the sacrament now not used and showed in those places,
  to the distress of the faith and spiritual comfort to man’s soul; the
  temple of God russed[1676] and pulled down, the ornaments and relics
  of the church of God unreverent used, the towns [_tombs_] and
  sepulchres of honourable and noble men pulled down and sold, none
  hospitality now in those places kept, but the farmers for the most
  part lets and taverns[1677] out the farms of the same houses to other
  farmers, for lucre and advantage to themselves. And the profits of
  these abbeys yearly goeth out of the country to the King’s highness,
  so that in short space little money, by occasion of the said yearly
  rents, tenths and first fruits, should be left in the said country, in
  consideration of the absence of the King’s highness in those parts,
  want of his laws and the frequentation of merchandise. Also divers and
  many of the said abbeys were in the mountains and desert places, where
  the people be rude of conditions and not well taught the law of God,
  and when the said abbeys stood, the said people not only had worldly
  refreshing in their bodies but also spiritual refuge both by ghostly
  living of them and also by spiritual information, and preaching; and
  many their tenants were their fee’d servants to them, and serving-men,
  well succoured by abbeys; and now not only these tenants and servants
  want refreshing there, both of meat, cloth and wages and knoweth not
  now where to have any living, but also strangers and baggers of corn
  as betwixt Yorkshire, Lancashire, Kendal, Westmorland, and the
  Bishopric, [for there] was neither carriage of corn and merchandise
  [but was] greatly succoured both horse and man by the said abbeys, for
  none was in these parts denied, neither horsemeat nor mansmeat, so
  that the people were greatly refreshed by the said abbeys, where now
  they have no such succour; and wherefore the said statute of
  suppression was greatly to the decay of the commonwealth of that
  country, and all those parts of all degrees greatly grudged against
  the same, and yet doth, their duty of allegiance always saved.

  “Also the abbeys were one of the beauties of this realm to all men and
  strangers passing through the same; also all gentlemen [were] much
  succoured in their needs with money, their young sons there succoured,
  and in nunneries their daughters brought up in virtue; and also their
  evidences and money left to the uses of infants in abbeys’ hands,
  always sure there; and such abbeys as were near the danger of sea
  banks, [were] great maintainers of sea walls and dykes, maintainers
  and builders of bridges and highways, [and] such other things for the
  commonwealth.”[1678]

Even more enthusiastic evidence as to the virtues of the monasteries was
given by a Yorkshireman who lived near Roche Abbey in the reign of
Edward VI. He too praised the monks for repairing the highways, for
lending money to the needy, and for their hospitality and charity. In
addition he said that they were good landlords, who never enclosed the
common lands, and when corn was scarce, would sell it “under the market”
to bring down the price[1679]. The Pilgrims’ marching song sets forth
their praises with the greatest simplicity:

                        “Alack, alack!
                        For the church’s sake
                        Poor commons wake
                            And no marvel!
                        For clear it is
                        The decay of this
                        How the poor shall miss
                            No tongue can tell.

                        For there they had
                        Both ale and bread
                        At time of need
                            And succour great
                        In all distress
                        And heaviness
                            And well entreat.

                        In trouble and care
                        When that we were
                        In manner all bare
                            Of our substance.
                        We found good bate
                        At churchmen’s gate
                        Without checkmate
                            Or variance.”[1680]

The anonymous petition is to the same effect, “Our petition is, the same
[_the statute of suppression_] to be annulled and a new qualified order
commodious to your Grace to be taken, so that the said monasteries may
stand and your commonalty and poor subjects therein to be relieved, and
the prayer for the founders and service of God maintained.”[1681]

It will be observed that the monks are praised for their public virtues.
They might have done all this, except the education of children, even if
their private lives were stained with as many vices as are mentioned in
the Comperta. The people judged the monks by their deeds, and that their
deeds were on the whole good is shown by the very fact that the King
attacked them for their private lives, concerning which it was
impossible that there should be very reliable evidence.

Allowance must be made for the fact that these eulogies were written by
partisans of the monks. Even in Yorkshire all the monasteries did not
attain this high standard, as for instance in the case of Whitby, where
the Abbot lived on his cliff like a robber baron, in league with the
pirates of the coast, and his fee’d men fought with the townspeople, and
carried on feuds with the servants of the neighbouring gentlemen[1682].
Nevertheless from the whole evidence it appears that in the north the
abbeys still performed useful social duties, and that their destruction
was therefore a severe blow. In the south, which was more civilised,
their functions had been to a great extent superseded and consequently
their loss was less felt. The wholesale suppression of all the
monasteries, without more than nominal discrimination between the useful
and the useless, was rightly felt by the Pilgrims to be a great
injustice to the north.

In addition to the general objections to the suppression, Aske, being a
lawyer, noticed a flaw in the printed version of the statute. He pointed
out to Darcy and Constable that the Act granted to the King all
monasteries under the value of £200, without any definition as to where
the monasteries were situated, whether in England or abroad. In
consequence of this Aske considered the statute in that form to be void,
although he supposed that there might be “another statute” [i.e. the
original] which was fully and legally drawn up[1683].

  (5) “To have the tenths and first fruits clearly discharged of the
  same [monasteries] unless the clergy will grant a rent charge in
  generality to the augmentation of the Crown.”

The arguments against the Act of Annates[1684], which granted the first
fruits to the King, were:

(_a_) that no King of England had ever received them before;

(_b_) that it had not been accepted by the Convocation of York;

(_c_) that in the case of monasteries it impoverished the monks unduly,
as they had nothing to live on during the first year of a new abbot;

(_d_) that the money was sent out of the north, where there was too
little coin already;

(_e_) that ecclesiastical benefices might by death, deprivation, or
resignation become vacant several times in one year, and as the King
demanded first fruits on each new appointment, the value of the benefice
was for the time reduced to nothing, and in the case of monasteries the
brethren were completely ruined[1685].

This last complaint expresses the origin of the whole trouble. The
King’s argument was that tenths and first fruits had always been paid to
the Pope, and that the clergy were just as well able to pay them to him.
Also it was better that the money should be kept in the kingdom and
spent on the needs of the government than that it should be sent abroad
and nothing received in return. But the payments to Rome had only fallen
due at reasonably long intervals; even then they had been a grievance,
but now that they were collected by the King at close quarters, and made
to yield as much as could possibly be squeezed out of the Church, the
grievance became intolerable.

The clergy themselves naturally wished that all the payments should be
abolished[1686], but the laymen were of the opinion that though the
Statute of Firstfruits was “a decay to all religion,” the tenths “might
be borne well enough.”[1687] They were themselves petitioning against
the heavy taxes, and they did not intend that the clergy should escape
their share of the burden, although the laity were willing to defend the
clergy from extortion. The Pilgrims thought that the case might be met
by a fixed rent charge paid by the Church to the Crown. The same idea is
expressed in two of the articles attributed to Aske. One complains of
the “first fruits, augmentations and other extortions that the lord
Chancellor, lord Cromwell and their servants yearly collect from all
parts of the realm.” The other, which is mutilated at the beginning,
proposes that a charge should be reserved, probably upon the monastic
lands, “which is thought to be sufficient for defence of the said realm
and maintenance of lawful war, if it be kept for the same use.”[1688]

  (6) “To have the Friars Observants restored to their houses.”

As this order had been suppressed earlier than the others, by different
means and for different reasons[1689], the repeal of the Act of
Suppression would not be sufficient to restore it, and it was therefore
mentioned separately.

  (7) “To have the heretics, bishops and temporal, and their sect, to
  have condign punishment by fire or such other, or else to try the
  quarrel with us and our partakers in battle.”

Aske said that this was taken from the Lincolnshire articles[1690],
although it differed from them in naming none of the heretics. The
article was probably drawn up in this general form because the question
as to who were heretics was being very carefully discussed. The ten
articles of religion were accepted as being a satisfactory exposition of
the Faith. Archbishop Lee considered that they were all that could be
desired. Reginald Pole found no fault with their contents, which he held
to be in accordance with the Roman standard, although he was shocked
that they should be issued by the King’s authority[1691]. The Pilgrims
evaded this last difficulty by laying stress on the part which
Convocation had taken in drawing up the articles. In the propositions
attributed to Aske, it is desired “that the book of articles lately
commanded, by the advice of the Catholic bishops and doctors, be
taught,” and that those who offended against it should be punished.
Among the supposed offenders are named the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Bishops of Rochester and Dublin, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy
Seal, and probably others whose names are lost[1692].

In order that heresy should be clearly defined, Robert Chaloner laid
before Aske, Constable, and the other leaders who drew up the Pilgrims’
articles, a memorial on the subject. “In that book first were, as it had
been interrogatories to the spirituality, touching our faith, to prove
whose works and books were heresy by their opinion, and who of the
bishops and others preached and maintained these books, being heresy,
and by that means to have proved who, by their opinion, had been
heretics, as then it was said friar Barnes was for his opinions put in
the Tower.”[1693] Richard Bowyer laid before Aske certain books which he
“articled to be heresy.”[1694] In the course of the discussion, Darcy
declared that “he would be none heretic in consenting to the opinions”
expressed in “the new preaching of certain new bishops.”[1695]

The books and the interrogatories were laid before the council of
divines in order that they might pronounce on their doctrines, and
meanwhile the laity expressed their opinion in this general resolution.

Although no names were entered in the petition, the commons “noted the
bishops of Canterbury [_Cranmer_], Worcester [_Latimer_], Rochester
[_Hilsey_] and St David’s [_Barlow_] to be heretics.”[1696] It was
objected against all of them that they had been named in the
Lincolnshire petition, that they favoured the new learning and the
opinions of Luther and Tyndale, that they preached against the religious
orders and supported the Act of Suppression, disregarded the customs and
ceremonies of the Church, preached against the Pope, and supported the
royal supremacy. In particular it was alleged against the Bishop of
Worcester that “he was before abjured, or else should have borne a
faggot for his preaching,” and against the Archbishop of Canterbury that
he had not received his pall from Rome, and that he had pronounced the
divorce between the King and Queen Katharine[1697]. It was also said,
with a manifest allusion to the execution of More and Fisher, that the
King should mingle mercy with justice, for though he had the power of
life and death, he could not bring to life a man who had been executed,
and therefore no one should be condemned without the counsel of the most
virtuous bishops, not of those who were mere time-servers[1698].

It is easier to unite in hate than in love; all the Pilgrims may not
have been sound on the question of the papal supremacy, but none of them
had a good word to say for the heretic bishops. Still the Pilgrims
endeavoured to act fairly even by these men, for though it cannot be
denied that they would dearly have liked to burn them, they referred
their case for further consideration to the spirituality.

  (11)[1699] “That Dr Legh and Dr Layton have condign punishment for
  their extortions from religious houses and other abominable acts.”

After the council at York, Aske sent orders into Cumberland and
Westmorland that evidence should be collected as to the behaviour of the
monastic commissioners[1700]. The clergy in those parts were out of
sympathy with the Pilgrims and would determine nothing[1701], but
similar orders were probably sent into other districts where the
witnesses were more willing. Only one fragment of their evidence is
preserved, and that not of a very serious character; it was said that
the servants of the commissioners used the vestments from the suppressed
abbeys for saddle-cloths[1702]. It is not certain what further
accusations were brought against Legh and Layton on this occasion, but
in 1539 one of Bishop Tunstall’s servants told a similar story. The
commissioners stripped the gold and silver from the relics of the saints
and threw the bones contemptuously away. On one occasion they gave some
ornamented relics to a bystander and “bade him pluck off the silver and
garnish his dagger withal,” but he, horror-stricken, preserved what they
gave him intact, and afterwards gathered up the bones they had
dishonoured[1703]. Such outrages against popular feeling aroused the
greatest indignation and “in all parts of the realm men’s hearts much
grudge ... against the visitors, especially against Doctors Legh and
Layton.”[1704]

  (18) “The privileges and rights of the Church to be confirmed by Act
  of Parliament. Priests not to suffer by the sword unless degraded. A
  man to be saved by his book. Sanctuary to save a man for all causes in
  extreme need, and the Church for forty days, and further according to
  the laws as they were used in the beginning of the King’s days.”

The first clause of this article is one of several which show the
Pilgrims’ respect for constitutional procedure. It was not enough that
the King should promise to grant their petition, the articles must be
ratified by the act of the whole nation.

The later clauses are frankly reactionary, but it may be urged in their
favour that the laws at that time were very severe, and were enforced
with great inequality. Any custom which tended to mitigate their
severity had a certain use, and might serve to give the poor man a
little protection against the rich. The abolition of privileges, even of
those which were open to so much abuse as the right of sanctuary, made
the weak more helpless.

In the case of the punishment of priests without degradation, it might
fairly be maintained that a serious subject had been treated too
hastily, as the clause which put an end to this privilege had been
tacked on to the end of a re-enactment of some earlier statutes dealing
with sanctuary and benefit of clergy[1705].

  (19) “The liberties of the Church to have their old customs, as the
  county palatine of Durham, Beverley, Ripon, St Peter of York, and such
  other, by Act of Parliament.”

The policy of the Tudors was centralisation, but while the central
government was still so ineffective, the advantages of centralisation
were not as obvious as they are at present. Local feeling was very
strong, and all of the “liberties of the Church” keenly resented any
interference with their privileges, although with the passing of the
feudal system the reasons for their exemption had disappeared. While the
King was anxious to abolish privileges he was slow to grant the
equivalent rights; for instance, most of the privileges of the county
palatine of Durham were abolished, but the shire of Durham was not
allowed to send representatives to the House of Commons. This article
was included in deference to the feelings of the men of Durham, Beverley
and elsewhere, but the point was not of much importance in itself.


II. CONSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCES.

  (3) “That the Lady Mary may be made legitimate, and the former statute
  therein annulled for the danger of the title that might incur to the
  crown of Scotland: that to be by parliament.”

All Henry’s efforts to obtain a legitimate male heir had ended in
plunging the question of the succession into hopeless confusion. The
acknowledgment of Mary was the solution which would be most acceptable
to the nation at large. She was beloved for her own sake and for her
mother’s, she was undoubtedly Henry’s daughter, she represented the old
faith, and she stood between the crown and the detested Scots claim. The
arguments in her favour were set forth as follows:

(_a_) Mary was legitimate “if any laws in Christendom may have place.”
The process by which her mother’s marriage was declared void had been
hurried through by the King while the cause was still before the Court
of Rome, the authority which both the parties had acknowledged. “This
cannot stand, a man to be both judge in his own case and party.”[1706]
Although the Archbishop of Canterbury had pronounced the marriage null,
yet he had no power to do so while the cause was being tried before his
superior, the Pope, and the Archbishop’s own consecration was doubtful,
as he had not received the pall from Rome[1707].

(_b_) The statute which pronounced Mary to be illegitimate was passed
before the Pope’s decision on her mother’s appeal was known in
England[1708], and it was unjust to condemn her to the penalty before
the judgment had been delivered[1709].

(_c_) If the Pope’s decision was in her favour, she would still be
illegitimate by statute, from which it would appear that the statute had
been made “more for some displeasure towards her and her friends, than
for any just cause.”[1710] The wording of this objection shows that the
decision of the papal Consistory Court was not generally known in
England, although judgment had been given in favour of Katharine more
than two years before, on 23 March 1534[1711].

(_d_) She and her friends did not deserve displeasure; they ought rather
to receive the highest consideration, as through her mother she was
related to the greatest European monarch, whose family had long been
allied with England[1712].

(_e_) “The said Lady Mary ought to be favoured for her great virtues
then and yet esteemed to be in her ... for the said Lady Mary is
marvellously beloved for her virtue in the hearts of the people.”[1713]

(_f_) She ought to be restored to the succession because her cousin,
Charles V, might take up her cause, and prohibit the valuable trade with
Flanders[1714].

  (8) “Lord Cromwell, the Lord Chancellor [Audley] and Sir Richard Riche
  to have condign punishment, as subvertors of the good laws of the
  realm and maintainers and inventers of heretics.”

Aske said little against Cromwell and his underlings except in the
matter of heresy[1715]. The expressions of less moderate men may be
learnt from the only one of the “books of advice” laid before the
council of Pilgrims which has been preserved. Aske mentioned three such
papers, Chaloner’s, Babthorpe’s and Sir Thomas Tempest’s[1716].
Chaloner’s related principally to religion, and Babthorpe’s “touched but
few matters in the petitions;”[1717] it therefore seems probable that
the extant paper is the one which Sir Thomas Tempest sent to Pontefract
because he was too ill to come himself. In form it is to some extent a
reply to the King’s letter to the gentlemen. The exordium is that “the
King should [condescend to] our petition against the lollard and traitor
Thomas Cromwell, his disciples and adherents, or at least exile him and
them forth of the realm.” The writer begins by discussing the question
whether subjects have a right to appoint the King’s Council, which Henry
angrily denied. The Pilgrims, however, pointed out that it was essential
for the welfare of the kingdom that the Council should be composed of
patriots. If the King appointed men merely because they were personally
pleasing to him, his subjects for his own sake must take some
precaution, as in the case of “the council of Paris in France,” for if
the King preferred his favourites to the nobles, baronage and
commonwealth of the realm, he would come to a miserable end like
Rehoboam, Edward II, and Richard II. After touching on some other
points, the writer enumerated Cromwell’s offences. He was a traitor to
the King, for he encouraged him to break his coronation oath, and caused
him to lose the love of his subjects by pillaging them, and to lose the
respect of foreign princes by his perjury. Cromwell had boasted that he
would make the King the richest prince in Christendom, but instead of
that he had made him the poorest, for the riches of his kingdom were
spent, his subjects were in rebellion, and his allies abroad had grown
hostile. The writer concluded by a solemn warning that there could be no
safety for any of the Pilgrims until Cromwell was dead. They saw what
was the fate of the Lincolnshire rebels. Cromwell must be executed, and
the treasure which he and his disciples had accumulated might be used
for the good of the realm. If Cromwell were not put out of the way, it
would be better to fight while the rebels’ situation was so promising.
The Duke of Norfolk and the other southern noblemen ought to help on the
destruction of the archtraitor, “for their part is not unlike to be in
after this.”[1718]

This invective shows clearly how successful Henry had been in throwing
the whole responsibility for his measures upon Cromwell’s shoulders. The
Pilgrims believed that they were saving both the King and the country
from the power of a wicked man. They did not realise that Cromwell was
the tool, not the principal.

Audley and Riche were not so much considered. They came in for a share
of the hatred excited by Cromwell, because they were looked upon as his
dependents. They had succeeded to the offices formerly held by the good
Sir Thomas More, Audley as Chancellor and Riche as Speaker of the House
of Commons[1719].

  (12) “Reformation for the election of knights of the shire and
  burgesses, and for the use among the lords in the parliament house
  after their ancient custom.”

Henry asserted that Parliament had sanctioned everything which he had
done. The Pilgrims retorted that “these parliaments were of none
authority nor virtue, for if they should be truly named, they should be
called councils of the King’s appointment, and not parliaments.”[1720]
Sir Thomas Tempest, if it was he, declared that members were no longer
elected, but were appointed by the King. As an instance he mentioned Sir
Francis Brian, who knew nothing about the affairs of the borough[1721]
which he nominally represented in the last parliament. His seat was
given to him in order that he might speak against religion and make the
grants which the King demanded. Moreover it was no longer permitted that
the King’s affairs should be discussed in parliament, although the whole
realm suffered for the King’s sin, as Israel did for David’s[1722].

The propositions attributed to Aske mention the same points.

  “Such persons as were elected to the said parliament were named in the
  King’s letters....

  Every burgess of parliament ought to be [an] inhabitant within the
  borough he represents; yet many were to the contrary, yea, that of the
  worst sort.

  The old custom was that none of the King’s servants should be of the
  Commons’ House; yet most of that house were the King’s servants.

  If a knight or a burgess died during parliament his room should
  continue void to the end of the same[1723]; and it is not unknown
  that—”

Here the manuscript is mutilated, but at the end the writer seems to be
arguing that the acts of this packed House of Commons were all
void[1724].

Another parliamentary grievance was the insufficient representation of
the north. This was not due to any malice on the part of the King, but
rather to the poverty and indifference of the Yorkshire boroughs.
Members were returned by fifteen boroughs, besides those for the shire
and city of York, in the reigns of Edward I and Edward III[1725], but of
these all but two had become virtually disfranchised long before the
reign of Henry VIII. In the case of Pontefract, it was recorded that in
the time of Henry VI a return had been made for this place, but the
inhabitants could not afford to send a member[1726]. The other boroughs
must have fallen off in the same way during the Scots wars and the Wars
of the Roses. In 1529 Yorkshire sent to Westminster two knights of the
shire, two members each from the city of York and the borough of Hull,
which were separate counties, and two from the borough of
Scarborough[1727]. The returns for the parliament of 1536 are lost, but
according to Aske’s statement Scarborough was the only Yorkshire borough
represented in it, apart from York and Hull[1728]. It is interesting to
see that reawakened interest in political affairs made the Yorkshire
gentlemen regret the loss of their members, which was due to the
indifference of their ancestors.

It was suggested at Doncaster that burgesses should be returned by
Beverley, Ripon, Richmond, Pontefract, Wakefield, Skipton and
Kendal[1729], but it is not certain whether this point was discussed at
Pontefract[1730].

As for the ancient customs of the House of Lords, Darcy described to
Aske recent innovations. In the first place, matters touching the
spiritual authority had formerly been determined in Convocation and not
by the Lords.

Secondly, it had been usual for the Lords to begin their proceedings
after mass, by reading the first chapter of Magna Carta, “touching the
rights and liberties of the Church,” but this custom had been
discontinued. It seems to be alluded to in the list of propositions
attributed to Aske, “that the Church of England may enjoy the liberties
granted them by Magna Carta, and used until six or seven years
past.”[1731] The Pilgrims anticipated the “discovery” of Magna Carta (so
far as it affected the Church) by the parliamentary opponents of the
Stewarts[1732].

Thirdly, when any bill touching the prerogative of the crown was
introduced into the House of Commons, it had been customary for the
Lords to request to have a copy of it, that they might take counsel’s
opinion as to whether the bill was constitutional; but of late they had
had great difficulty in obtaining copies of the bills, partly through
“default in those of the Chancery in the use of their office amongst the
lords,” and partly because the bills were rushed through both houses
without proper warning[1733].

Thus the twelfth article in the Pilgrims’ petition comprised the
following points:

(_a_) that the King should not interfere in elections;

(_b_) that complete freedom of speech should be enjoyed in the House of
Commons;

(_c_) that additional representation should be given to Yorkshire;

(_d_) that spiritual matters should be dealt with by Convocation;

(_e_) that the House of Lords should be supplied with copies of the
bills laid before the House of Commons.

  (15) “To have a parliament at Nottingham or York, and that shortly.”

This was the necessary corollary of the last article. The reformed
parliament must meet at once to undo the work of its corrupt
predecessors, and it must be held at some place where it would not be so
completely in the power of the King as it was at Westminster. The
Pilgrims did not believe that there would be freedom of debate so near
the Tower, but at York a brave man might venture to utter an opinion
which it would be mere suicide to whisper in London.

This article and the preceding one bear upon the vexed question of
whether there was or was not freedom of speech in Henry VIII’s
parliaments. Without plunging into that controversy, we must simply note
that the Pilgrims believed there ought to be freedom of speech, but did
not believe that it existed. One scrap of evidence comes from Lord
Montague, who used to talk over the business just transacted in
Parliament with the Earl of Huntingdon. They both “did always grudge and
murmur against things determined there,” and “would say they were but
knaves and heretics that gave over, and that such as did agree to things
there did the same for fear.”[1734] This may have been merely the
peevishness of a defeated opposition[1735], but the Pilgrims had some
grounds for their belief, as Darcy, after opposing a royal measure, had
not been allowed to resume his seat in the House of Lords. In any case
this demand of the Pilgrims is worth noting. Their expedient for
securing free speech appears rather primitive, but it is necessary to
bear in mind what a great difference there was at that period between
the home counties and the more remote parts of England. Henry himself
could not seize a man until he came within his reach, and the King’s arm
was not long. This makes it the more extraordinary that he was able to
lure so many of his victims into his grasp.

  (17) “Pardon by Act of Parliament for all recognizances, statutes and
  penalties new forfeited during the time of this commotion.”

The general act of indemnity was the first work which the new parliament
would be called upon to do.

  (16) “The statute of the declaration of the crown by will to be
  repealed.”

This statute aroused great indignation. Among the commons it was
believed to have been framed in order that Cromwell himself might be
brought into the succession[1736]. Aske and his more enlightened
colleagues were not deceived by this wild fancy, but they had
substantial reasons to urge against the statute:

(_a_) First and most important from an Englishman’s point of view, there
had never been such a law before[1737].

(_b_) Private men did not enjoy the right of bequeathing their lands as
they pleased, although such a right would be very beneficial to them for
the payment of their debts and provision for their younger children. It
was unreasonable to give this power to the King, who required it less
than a private man, and thereby to make a distinction between
inheritance of the crown of England and inheritance of private property
in England[1738]. This is an allusion to the unpopular Statute of Uses.

(_c_) Henry IV had made an entail of the crown, but Edward IV had
repealed it, by the advice of his wise men. Henry VII had also wished to
make an entail, but had been prevented, “and King Henry VII was bruited
and called the wisest prince and king of the world.”[1739]

This point was characteristic of all the Lancastrian kings. As their
title to the crown by descent was defective, they sought to have it
confirmed by parliament[1740]. It is curious that Aske should have
thought that Henry VII did not make such a settlement, for the first
statute of his first parliament confirmed the crown of England to
himself and his heirs, as had been done in the case of Henry IV[1741].
There is however a great difference between these acts and that of Henry
VIII. In the earlier measures the crown was expressly entailed on the
King’s heirs according to the law of the land, whereas Henry was
empowered to name his own heir.

(_d_) If the King willed the crown away from the rightful heir apparent,
i.e. his next of kin, the result would be a war of succession, as it
would be impossible to try the case, because there were no
precedents[1742]. One of the questions to be put to the clergy, in the
list which is possibly Aske’s, bears on this point,—“If the King by his
last will will his realm after his death, especially out of the right
line of inheritance, whether his subjects are bound by God’s laws to
obey the will?”[1743]

In this objection Aske goes right to the heart of the position taken up
by the defenders of the act. They are unanimous in saying that the
nation delegated such power to the King in order to avoid civil war on
his death. But it appeared to the Pilgrims that the act, far from
averting a war of succession, made such a catastrophe almost inevitable.
If the King merely named his natural heir as his successor, the act was
pointless, for that person would have succeeded in any case. The late
King’s will might strengthen his or her position, but could have no
material importance. The only object of the statute, they thought, must
be to enable the King to alter the succession “out of the right line of
inheritance,” and there could be no possible guarantee that the
disinherited heir by birth would acknowledge the statute to be binding.
The Pilgrims concluded from these arguments that the statute should
either be annulled altogether, leaving the crown to descend according to
the law of the land, or else that the King’s heir should be named at
once by act of parliament[1744].

(_e_) The next objection brought against the statute shows the direction
which the gentlemen’s fears were taking. “If the crown were given by the
King’s highness to an alien, as we doubt not his grace will not do so,
how should this alien by reason have it, for he in his person was not
made able to take it, no more than if I would give lands to an alien, it
is a void gift to the alien, because he is not born under the allegiance
of this crown.”[1745]

The gentlemen did not believe that Henry could or would make Cromwell
his heir, but they feared that he might bring into the succession the
King of Scotland, or still more probably James V’s half-sister, Lady
Margaret Douglas. The idea of a Scots monarch sitting on the throne of
England was detested in the north, and if Henry VIII had allowed his
bitterness against his daughter Mary to carry him so far as to alter the
succession in favour of her cousins, there can be no doubt that war
would have followed.

(_f_) Finally it would appear very strange and ridiculous to other
nations that in England there should be one law for the King and another
for the people, and, what was still more inconvenient, that it should
not be known who was the heir to the crown until after the King’s
death[1746].

For all these reasons and many more “not necessary to be opened, unless
it were in parliament,” the Pilgrims determined that the statute ought
to be repealed.


III. LEGAL GRIEVANCES.

  (10) “The statute of handguns and crossbows to be repealed, except in
  the King’s parks or forests.”

This statute was a re-enactment of two earlier statutes, which
prohibited the use of handguns and crossbows to persons whose income was
less than £100 a year. Exceptions from its operation were made in favour
of towns and fortresses on or within seven miles of the coast, or the
Scots marches, and also in favour of the inhabitants of Northumberland,
Durham, Westmorland and Cumberland[1747]. Its object was to keep up the
practice of shooting with the long bow, which was falling into disuse,
but all such attempts at coercion are inevitably unpopular, and this
statute must have been particularly resented in Yorkshire, by reason of
the contrast with the neighbouring counties which were exempted from its
provisions.

Apart from any such local feeling there was a deeper motive in the
opposition to this statute. The men of England dimly perceived that in
their weapons lay their last hope of freedom. Legislation even about the
nature of their weapons roused their suspicions. They felt that it would
make a distinction between themselves and the regular soldiers whom the
King might employ. The long bow, still the principal instrument of war
in England, was becoming obsolete and the English bowmen respected if
they did not fear the arquebus men used in the continental wars. The
success of the Pilgrimage up to this point was in fact due to the
absence of any trained soldiers in England. The revolt in Germany was
crushed by the veterans who returned home from Italy after the battle of
Pavia[1748]. The Norfolk rebellion in 1549 was suppressed by means of
German and Italian mercenaries[1749]. Henry’s foreign wars had been too
brief to produce bodies of seasoned troopers, and it must be put to his
credit that he had not yet employed mercenaries. But he might do so
whenever he saw fit, and to equalise matters as far as possible the
commons wished to be free to use whatever weapons they found most
effective.

  (20) “To have the statute that no man shall not will his lands
  repealed.”

This was the Statute of Uses, which has already been discussed so
fully[1750] that it is not necessary to do more than recapitulate Aske’s
arguments against it. He seems to have considered that the law with
respect to the inheritance of land held in chief of the King had been
unsatisfactory before the statute was passed, and he said that this
article would not have been included if it had not occurred in the
Lincolnshire petition. When he went to court he declared his opinion of
the old law fully to the King[1751]. In the propositions attributed to
Aske there are two mutilated articles which appear to suggest that the
King should cause inquisition to be made, and the Exchequer rolls to be
searched, in order that it might be clearly ascertained which were the
lands held in chief of the King, as at present much trouble and expense
was caused by uncertainty on this point[1752].

But Aske did not consider that the Statute of Uses was rightly framed to
reform the old state of things. In the first place it gave a man in some
ways more opportunity of defeating the royal claims on his lands;
secondly, it altered the old forms of pleading at law and introduced
great confusion; thirdly, it prevented men from raising money on their
lands by making it possible for their sons to repudiate their
debts[1753].

The first objection roused the interest of his examiners, and they
wanted to know how the King’s rights might now be defeated[1754]. Aske
replied that it was difficult for him to set forth the matter, as he had
been separated from his books for so long, but the judges and others
deeply learned in the law could explain it, and there was one case which
he himself could give from his own knowledge[1755]. “If a man held land
of the King as of his duchy or of the crown, and have licence to alien
and do alien to an estranger to the use of the stranger, upon condition
that he shall execute an estatute to him for term of his life, the
remainder thereof to his son or heir apparent, and to the heirs of his
body legitime, the remainder in fee simple to a younger of his sons or
daughters or to an estranger, in this case his son cannot be in ward,
nor the lands, for he comes in after his father as a purchaser; and
collusion it cannot be, because the remainder of the fee simple is in a
stranger.”[1756]

Aske was expressing the lawyer’s point of view in this. Most of the
gentlemen assembled at Pontefract would object to the Statute of Uses,
not because it could be evaded, but because they did not for the moment
see how to evade it. In the end Aske’s view proved to be correct, and
the effects of the statute were the very opposite to those which the
King expected[1757].

  (21) “The statutes of treasons for words and such-like made since 21
  Henry VIII to be repealed.”

The chief reason that the people grudged against the treason laws was
that they were prohibited from discussing the King’s title of supreme
head of the Church. They “thought it very strait that a man might not
declare his conscience in such a great case,” for it was a matter that
touched the health of their souls[1758]. There seem to be one or two
allusions to the treason laws in the paper attributed to Sir Thomas
Tempest. One has been noted above[1759]. Another may be implied when the
writer refers to the good days of Henry VII, who allowed men condemned
to death to buy their pardons, and “if the faulter had amend[ed] his
condition and grown to be a good man again, when he had amended the King
would have withdrawn his wrath and by one mean or other have looked so
of him that he should have had such a thing as should help him as much
as his fine hindered him.”[1760] In the propositions attributed to Aske
it is requested that “acts of parliament ... contrary to the law of God
may be avoided [made void] and the acts concerning high treason
reformed.”[1761]

On the whole there was little discussion of these terrible laws, because
no one ventured to criticise them. Aske’s reply to a question on the
subject breaks off suddenly, as if even his examiners in the Tower did
not dare to hear all that an outspoken man could say on the
subject[1762].

  (22) “That the common laws may have place as was used in the beginning
  of the reign, and that no injunctions be granted unless the matter has
  been determined in Chancery.”

This and the following article are included in one among the
propositions attributed to Aske: “that the laws may be used as at the
beginning of the King’s reign, and that injunctions, subpoenas, and
privy seals be not granted so commonly and into countries distant from
London as of late time they have been.”[1763] In another place Aske
accused Audley the Lord Chancellor of “playing of ambedexter in granting
and dissolving of injunctions.”[1764]

The theory which underlay the Chancellor’s power to grant injunctions is
well known. The Common Law courts administered justice according to law
and precedent, but this, although sufficient in the average case, might
bear hardly on individuals in special cases. When this happened, the
individual had the power to appeal to the Chancellor who, as keeper of
the King’s conscience, was able to grant “grace,” “conscience,” or
“equity,” in the form of an injunction which bound the other party in
the suit either to refrain from prosecuting in a particular court, or to
cease from the conduct which was causing complaint[1765]. There was no
objection to this power in general, except the universal one that the
remedy was in practice open only to the rich, but in the hands of such a
man as Audley the granting of injunctions was liable to abuse. The
Pilgrims’ article “means that the chancery may interfere with an action
at common law, only if that action is opening a question already decided
in the chancery.”[1766]

At this particular period, however, the Chancellor’s power had another
and more dangerous aspect. There is some reason to believe that England
was on the verge of a “Reception” of the Civil Code of Justinian similar
to that which took place in Germany. Although Reginald Pole was an
admirer of the Civil Law[1767], yet its chief advocates were found among
Henry’s chosen servants, Gardiner, Bonner, Layton, Legh[1768] and
others, and “partly by injunctions, as well before verdicts, judgments
and executions as after, and partly by writs of Sub Poena issuing out of
the King’s court of chancery” the “Common Laws of this realm ... hath
not been only stayed of their direct course, but also many times altered
and violated by reason of Decrees made in the said court of chancery,
most grounded upon law civil and upon matter depending in the conscience
and discretion of the hearers thereof, who being civilians and not
learned in the Common Laws, setting aside the said Common Laws,
determine the weighty causes of this realm according either to the said
Law Civil or to their own conscience; which Law Civil is to the subjects
of this realm unknown, and they not bound nor inheritable to the same
law, and which judgments and decrees grounded upon conscience are not
grounded nor made upon any rule certain or law written.”[1769]

The great bulwark of English Common Law against the Civil Law was the
body of lawyers of the inns of court[1770], and these champions were
numerously represented among the Pilgrims, in whose ranks they carried
on the struggle with weapons in their hands. Maitland says, “It will be
seen that in 1536 the cause of ‘the common laws’ found itself in very
queer company; illiterate, monkish and papistical company, which
apparently has made a man of ‘Anibaptist.’”[1771] If the great jurist
had gone more deeply into the Pilgrimage of Grace, he would have been
surprised to find how familiar that company was to him.

  (23) “That men north of Trent summoned on subpoena appear at York, or
  by attorney, unless it be directed on pain of allegiance, or for like
  matters concerning the King.”

This article is closely connected with the preceding one. It is another
illustration of the wide separation that there was between London and
the North, when the journey was long, costly and dangerous, and the
countryman in London found himself in a strange land.

  (24) “A remedy against escheators for finding false offices and
  extorting fees.”

This was one of the grievances connected with the Statute of Uses, and
it is mentioned in the propositions attributed to Aske under that
heading. As the lands held _in capite_ are not certainly known “certain
of the Exchequer for money finds untrue offices against the King and in
like case oftentimes bribes and extortions the King’s —.” Here the
manuscript is mutilated[1772].

Complaints against escheators are older than the Statute of Uses, and
occur among the grievances of the rebels in almost all revolts, both
before and after the Pilgrimage. The escheators were the King’s
servants, who used their authority to bully and plunder the provincials.
Another of the propositions attributed to Aske refers to the same
injuries; it is against those who obtain “rooms” and “offices” “for
maintenance of their authority and their children’s blood,” and who have
“bribed and extortioned the King’s subjects.” It is requested that they
may be punished and honourable men put in their places[1773].

The Pilgrims associated all such abuses with Cromwell. The writer
supposed to be Sir Thomas Tempest complained that Cromwell’s servants
and his servants’ servants “thinks to have the law in every place here
ordered at their commandment, and will take upon them to command
sheriff, justices of peace, coram and of session in their master’s name
at their pleasure, witness Brabson and Dakyns.”[1774]


IV. ECONOMIC GRIEVANCES.

  (9) “That the lands in Westmorland, Cumberland, Kendal, Dent,
  Sedbergh, Furness, and the abbey lands in Mashamshire, Kirkbyshire,
  Netherdale, may be by tenant right, and the lord to have, at every
  change, two years’ rent for gressom, according to the grant now made
  by the lords to the commons there. This to be done by Act of
  Parliament.”

The “gressom,” “ingressum” or “gyrsuma” was the fine paid by a tenant on
entering upon his lands. In order to understand the peasants’ grievances
with respect to this fine, it is necessary to sketch the position of the
tenant with regard to his landlord in these districts.

The commons of the districts named in the article held their lands by
tenant right. “In this mode of tenure, the lord could not impose his
will on the tenant—they were joint owners. The rights of lord and tenant
were determined by the custom of the manor. When a tenant died, his
estate escheated to the lord till the heir was declared as in tenure in
capite. The lord was obliged to admit the heir, and the fine on
admission was not arbitrary, like some other phases of tenure, but
according to the custom of the manor.” In the thirteenth century a fine
of one year’s rent seems to have been usual[1775]. After the Black
Death, when it was very difficult to find tenants, the lords of manors
were often content with merely nominal fines; in 1358 at Pittington in
Durham a tenant came in on payment of “one urchinne,” i.e. a
hedgehog[1776]. But with the increase of enclosure and sheep-farming,
the position of the lord altered completely. The tenant was no longer
necessary to him, and the lord therefore began to disregard the custom
of the manor and to demand much higher fines. If the tenant could pay,
it was so much ready money into the lord’s pocket. If he could not, he
was evicted and the farm was thrown open as part of the lord’s sheep
pastures. This was going on all over the country. In a case which was
brought before the Court of Star Chamber in 1527, the fine of land at
Thingdon in Northamptonshire was raised from 6_s._ 3½_d._ to
30_s._[1777] The commons of Kendal complained that where the ingressum
had been 4 marks it was now £40[1778]. When they took up arms the first
thing they did was to force their landlord to promise that he would
observe their ancient customs with regard to the ingressum. From the
wording of the article it appears that such promises had been obtained
in other districts also.

The commons of Westmorland demanded that “consernynge ye gyrsumes for
power mens to bee layd aparte bot only penny farm penny gyrsum.”[1779]
The fixing of the fine at two years’ rent, as requested in the article,
finally became law in 1781[1780].

The rising in Cumberland and Westmorland bears a much closer resemblance
to the various peasant revolts in Germany than do the movements in the
other counties[1781]. Thus in the proclamation drawn up at Penrith by
Robert Thompson, the rebels were commanded to say daily five aves, five
paters and a creed, which recalls the Bruchsal insurgents of 1502, who
bound themselves to say five aves and five paternosters daily[1782].
There is a striking correspondence between the petition of the commons
of Westmorland dated 15 November 1536[1783], and the Twelve Articles of
the Swabian Peasants in 1525[1784], despite the fact that the former
were rising, nominally at least, on behalf of the Church, and the latter
against it.

The first of the Twelve Articles required “that ministers should be
chosen by the whole congregation,—If they misconducted themselves their
parishioners should be empowered to remove them.” The commons of
Westmorland wished to turn out non-resident incumbents “ytt we may putt
in yair rowmes to serve God oder yt wald be glad to keep hospytallyte
for sum of yam ar no preestes yt hath ye benefyce in hand and oder of
yam is my lord Cr[om]well chapplaynes.”

The second of the Twelve Articles required that “only the great tithes
[of wheat and other grain] ... should be in future exacted, and not the
small tithes [of the produce of animals and the minor crops].” The
commons of Westmorland wished “all ye tythes to remayn to every man hys
owne doynge yerfor accordynge to yair dewtye,” which must mean that the
tithes should be replaced by a voluntary subscription.

In the sixth article the peasants demanded that “no feudal services were
to be exacted beyond those which could be proved to be of immemorial
antiquity.” This is paralleled by the demand of the Westmorland commons
“to haffe nowte Gyelt and sargeant corne layd downe qwyche we thynke war
a Great welthe for all ye power men to bee layd downe.” It is not
necessary for the present purpose to go into the vexed question of the
original significance which belonged to the payment of “nowt geld,” i.e.
neat [cattle] geld or cornage[1785]. In Henry VIII’s reign the feudal
origin of the payments was forgotten, and the levying of cornage and
serjeant corn, otherwise called bailiff oats, probably did not differ
materially from what it was a hundred years later, when in 1634 the
tenants made another effort to free themselves. The neat geld was a
fixed annual payment made by the townships in the barony of Westmorland
and varying from £5. 5_s._ 8_d._ paid by Milburn to 1_s._ paid by
Croftormount. The serjeant corn was still paid in kind, the oats being
collected by the bailiff between St Andrew’s Day [30 November] and
Candlemas [2 February]; the amount due from each township was measured
in two ancient pecks, one containing 8 and the other 10 quarts. A
perpetual quarrel raged between the bailiff and the tenants as to
whether the measures ought to be “striked,” i.e. filled level with the
brim, or upheaped[1786].

A comparison of the two articles shows how much further the English had
advanced on the road to freedom than the Swabian peasants. In Germany
the actual services were still demanded, and new ones might be exacted.
In England the commons were trying to free themselves from the mere
relics of the ancient services.

In the eighth article the Swabians required that “rents, which were in
the majority of cases excessive, should be reduced to reasonable
amounts.” This may be compared with the complaint against the ingressum.

The tenth article required that “common land on which the lords had
encroached should be restored to the community.” This grievance was
equally felt by the insurgents of both nations. In the Westmorland
petition it is requested that “all the intakes yt [are] noysom for power
men [ought] to be layd downe.” On this point more will be said below.

One clause in the Westmorland petition has no parallel in the Twelve
Articles, namely that “taxes [be] casten emongst ye benefest men as well
yam in abbett within us as yai yt is nott incumbent.” The clergy voted
their grants of money to the King in convocation, apart from the money
bills in the House of Commons, and paid separately from the laity[1787].
When the taxes were fixed sums raised by each district, as in the case
of the tenth and fifteenth, it would be a relief to the small farmer if
the clergy of the district shared in the lay taxes, instead of being
assessed separately. The commons probably did not reflect that if clergy
and laity paid together the King would demand a larger total than if the
laity paid alone. As the subsidy was not levied in Cumberland and
Westmorland all the taxes were paid in the old manner; none were
assessed directly. In Germany the question of taxation cannot have
arisen, as government taxes scarcely existed.

It is to be noticed that only two of the articles in the Westmorland
petition, those relating to fines and to enclosures, were included in
the list of articles drawn up at Pontefract. An assembly in which the
knightly and clerical elements were so strong had little sympathy with
demands drawn up entirely from the commons’ point of view. The clergy
could not be expected to acknowledge that parishioners might dispossess
the incumbent, for although those particular incumbents were very
unsatisfactory characters, still the principle, if once admitted, might
easily be carried a great deal too far. The same argument applies to the
question of tithes and taxation. The gentlemen, indeed, having accepted
the great point of the fines, might have consented to waive the
half-obsolete feudal dues, but the point may not have appeared of
sufficient importance to be included in the Pilgrims’ petition, as it
applied only to one district, and might be settled privately between
landlord and tenant.

  (13) “The statute for enclosures and intacks to be put in execution
  and intacks since 4 Henry VII to be pulled down, except mountains,
  forests and parks.”

This was a point on which the government was at one with the labourers,
but both were powerless. Acts of parliament had been passed with a view
to remedying the evil, but the King could not enforce them in the face
of the passive resistance of the country gentlemen. During the rebellion
the labourers sometimes took matters into their own hands, and pulled
down the enclosures[1788]. It is to be observed that the enclosure
movement in the north was not quite the same as that in the south; “it
was not the characteristic enclosure of the period, that of the open
fields, which is most prominent [during the Pilgrimage of Grace], but
the much older and long-continued enclosure of the commons.”[1789]

The gentlemen and their tenants at Pontefract must have united to insert
this article in their petition, but it is perhaps not unjust to imagine
that each of the gentlemen thought the reform ought to begin on somebody
else’s lands.

  (14) “To be discharged of the quinzine and taxes now granted by Act of
  Parliament.”

Something has already been said about the attitude of all classes
towards taxation[1790]. Briefly, they did not see why they should be
taxed at all. Instead of looking upon the taxes as a necessary incident
of government, they regarded them as something extraordinary, which were
required only on account of the King’s wilful extravagance. Therefore in
every rising it was usual to demand that the taxes should be
remitted[1791]. Although the fifteenth is mentioned by name, the subsidy
appears to have been the most keenly resented, because it was being
assessed directly.

The leaders of the Pilgrimage might have been expected to know that it
was absolutely necessary for the government to have money, and the
article may have been included to please the rank and file. Some of the
gentlemen, however, cherished the belief that the King could obtain what
he needed without troubling them. The writer supposed to be Sir Thomas
Tempest, dwells upon the means by which Henry VII increased his wealth;
first, by selling pardons; secondly, by some rather obscure dealings in
bishoprics, described as follows: “when a bishopric fell he would
promote his chaplain, and thereby by such exchange he would have the
profit of the temporalities of all the sees in the realm and content all
his prelates by the same, for he amended all their lineage thereby, and
hurt none, and yet increased his own riches marvellously”; thirdly, by
encouraging foreign trade[1792]. It is amusing to see how the gentlemen
now turned fond eyes back to the reign of Henry VII, who while he lived
was so bitterly hated for his extortion.


Such were the articles to be treated upon by the leaders of the
Pilgrimage and the King’s representatives. In reviewing them, it is
evident that they were not the clamour of peasants driven mad by
suffering, but ignorant of the remedy for their wrongs; nor were they
the work of blind fanatics who insisted on a complete reaction. The
articles show willingness to accept a reasonable compromise on every
important point.

The Pilgrims were ready to acknowledge the Ten Articles of Religion, as
issued by the King. They were prepared to agree to his possession of all
the substantial power attached to his title of Supreme Head of the
Church, if he would lay down the unlimited pretensions which were
implied in it. This was precisely what was done by his daughter
Elizabeth. The Pilgrims suggested that the King should receive an annual
rent charge from the monasteries, a permanent source of income which the
wholesale suppression destroyed for ever. They asked the King to burn
heretics, but he had never shown himself reluctant to perform that duty.
They asked him to punish Cromwell, but Henry had no sentimental scruples
about destroying a minister who had ceased to be useful. They desired
the repeal of a number of statutes, but they were willing to refer that
to a free parliament, and Henry always declared that he was glad to
summon a free parliament at any time. The question of the succession was
a thorny one, but it was to be solved next year by the birth of Prince
Edward; consequently, if it had been referred to parliament it would not
have proved a permanent obstacle.

It may be questioned whether it would not have been a wiser as well as a
more honourable course if Henry had entered into serious negotiations
with the Pilgrims, considered their demands, and established the Church
of England on the basis of an agreement between the opposition and
himself. That Church, when at last it was established, was the result of
a compromise, and there seems to be no vital reason why some compromise
should not have been made at once. No doubt the settlement would have
been on more conservative lines than were adopted later, and therefore
it would have had perhaps less chance of permanence, but it would have
been a rallying-point for the moderate men of all parties in the
troubled reigns which followed, and might have prevented much violent
change and consequent suffering.

The King himself seems to have been swayed for a little while by this
prospect. Stephen Gardiner, in a sermon preached at Paul’s Cross on 2
December, 1554, said, “When the tumult was in the north, in the time of
King Henry VIII, I am sure the King was determined to have given over
the supremacy again to the Pope; but the hour was not then come, and
therefore it went not forward, lest some would have said that he did it
for fear.”[1793] Gardiner was on an embassy in France during the
rebellion, and therefore cannot have been speaking from first-hand
knowledge, but his opinion carries a certain weight.

A still more interesting witness to the King’s hesitation is the draft
for an act of parliament, which, it has been conjectured, was to be
submitted to the free parliament which the Pilgrims demanded. It
represents Henry’s idea of a compromise on the subject of the
monasteries. In the first place all the monasteries which had been
suppressed were to remain so; the King would give up nothing which had
come into his hands, but it was to be enacted that the grantees must
reside upon the lands and maintain hospitality as the monks had done. In
the second place, all houses north of Trent which had not yet been
suppressed were to be expressly preserved by the act. The monks in these
houses must observe the new rules for their conduct which had been drawn
up in 1535, and a governor appointed by the King was to administer the
revenues of every house. No monastery was to be permitted to have an
income of more than 1000 marks a year. In the third place, the surplus
revenue of the monasteries was to be made over to a court, to be called
the Curia Centenariorum, presided over by the lord admiral. The funds
belonging to this court were to be devoted to maintaining a standing
army both in peace and war in the towns, castles and fortresses of the
realm[1794]. This scheme is stamped with Henry’s own peculiar form of
humour. In effect he said to the north:—“You insist on keeping the
monasteries? Very well. But you shall keep a standing army too.” It was
easy to see that the greater part of this army would be garrisoned in
the north. The project is a very striking one, but of no practical
importance, as it was never carried out.

Against these symptoms of yielding, slight as they were, Henry’s own
argument may be used, that it would have been foolish to take serious
notice of demands put forward by the ignorant and backward north. The
policy of the government ought to be controlled by the more enlightened
south. But it is clear that sympathy was felt for the northern movement
all over the country. This was not a mere fancy of the Pilgrims. Apart
from the abortive risings in other counties[1795], there is abundant
evidence that many, perhaps most, of the “southern men” would have
rejoiced at a compromise of the kind suggested above[1796].

In their negotiations with the King, the Pilgrims were handicapped by
having among their leaders no nobleman above the rank of a baron. It was
here that the Earl of Derby’s loss was severely felt. He would at any
rate have made a respectable figure-head for negotiations. The only
ecclesiastical dignitary of importance with them was the Archbishop of
York, whose timid, unstable character made him worse than useless.

Nevertheless, in spite of these drawbacks, the fact remains that the
King was forced to enter into negotiations with the Pilgrims, even
though they were northern men and lacked representatives in the peerage.
Henry saved his honour, in his own opinion, by the mental reservation
that he would not observe the terms any longer than he was compelled to
do so by force. He was obliged to treat, but at least he need not do it
sincerely. It was bad enough to be reduced to such an extremity, but he
had not fallen so low as to make a serious treaty and to keep his
promises. In this spirit, therefore, he rejected the opportunity of
establishing the Church of England upon the consent of the people. For
the remaining nine years of his reign his will was absolute in
ecclesiastical matters. The doctrines of the catholic faith were to be
accepted by his subjects not on the authority of “the Holy Church
throughout all the world” but on that of the reigning king. There was
therefore no security for the conservatives that the King would not
alter these doctrines at his pleasure, and in fact there is reason to
believe that Henry contemplated further changes of a more sweeping
character in the doctrine and practice of the Church at the time of his
death. The most probable explanation of his attitude in ecclesiastical
matters seems to be that he overrated his own power. He believed that he
could establish a church upon his own absolute will, and that yet, after
his own death, the church would stand. The event showed his mistake. On
his death religion in England fell into chaos.

The council at Pontefract had already done a good day’s work, but it was
not yet ended. In addition to agreeing upon the articles, a list of
instructions was drawn up for Sir Thomas Hilton and his
companions[1797]. One of these alone requires comment here: “That
Richard Cromwell nor none of his kind nor sort be at our meeting at
Doncaster.” This was resolved upon because—

(_a_) Norfolk had stated that he was coming to Doncaster unaccompanied
save by Sir Anthony Browne’s band, and the Pilgrims were annoyed to hear
that Richard Cromwell was also with him.

(_b_) There was great danger that if the commons knew that Cromwell’s
men were there they would insist upon attacking them.

(_c_) One of Robert Bowes’ servants, while in London, had quarrelled
with one of the Lord Privy Seal’s servants, and would pursue the feud if
he had the chance.

(_d_) Richard Cromwell had “spoken extreme words against the commons of
Lincolnshire.”[1798]

Before the council broke up, Lord Latimer suggested that the Archbishop
and the divines now assembled should be requested to “show their
learning whether subjects might lawfully move war in any case against
their prince.”[1799] There was no debate on the question, but Aske
undertook to lay it before the clergy, and it was hoped that the
Archbishop would deal with the problem in the sermon which he was to
preach next day[1800].

Lee had already arrived at Pontefract. The first thing that he did was
to attempt to play the same trick on Darcy which had succeeded so well
with Aske. His chaplain, Dr Brandsby, carried a verbal message to Darcy
that the Archbishop wished to have his written opinion as to how the
divines there assembled should show their learning. But Darcy was not to
be caught. He answered Dr Brandsby not in writing but by word of mouth,
and “like a knight, and neither as an orator nor lawyer nor
dissembler.”[1801] From this it may be inferred that his language was
forcible, not to say profane. At any rate he upset Lee’s plan for
collecting the treasonable opinions of the Pilgrims without stating his
own.

Meanwhile the other priests were assembling at Pontefract. Richmond was
represented by John Dakyn and the rector of Wycliffe, who was probably
Dr Rokeby[1802]. The rector of Wycliffe was not popular with his
parishioners, as one of his uncles was a surveyor of the abbeys. On the
outbreak of the rebellion the commons had threatened Rokeby, calling him
a lollard and a puller down of abbeys[1803]. It was Sir William
Tristram, the warlike chantry priest of Lartington, who told him that he
must go to Pontefract with Dakyn. On this news Rokeby went to consult
Dakyn, and they both appealed to Robert Bowes for advice. He assured
them that the Archbishop wanted their counsel, and they therefore both
went to Pontefract. They arrived in the afternoon on Saturday 2
December, and waited on the Archbishop in his chamber[1804]. He seems to
have been at the Priory, as he refused to go to the Castle[1805]. On
seeing Dakyn and Rokeby he expressed some surprise. They told him that
they understood from Bowes that he sent for them. He denied that he had
summoned anyone to a conference, although the letters had been sent out
in his name. He admitted, however, that he had received a list of
articles from the rebels, and had been requested to pronounce on their
truth. Although he would not acknowledge that he possessed the articles,
he sent Rokeby and Dakyn to Dr Brandsby for a copy. These seem to have
been the articles that Aske had sent to him[1806].

After this, the laymen’s conference having broken up, Lord Latimer came
to the Archbishop and asked him to declare next day in his sermon
whether it was lawful for subjects to wage war against their sovereign,
and to do it briefly, as there was to be a council at the Castle at nine
o’clock. Lee felt himself driven into a corner. With the resolution of
despair he promised to obey and asked Latimer to attend the sermon
instead of the council[1807]. Richard Bowyer, who seems to have acted as
clerk to the council, came to the Archbishop the same night with the
articles which had been passed by the Pilgrims that day. To him Lee
assumed the pose of a martyr: “Ye do see I cannot better it. How I am
entreated ye know.”[1808]

It has been said before, and may here be repeated, that it is incredible
that Archbishop Lee should have been allowed to preach at this critical
point if he really uttered all the loyal sentiments and made all the
protests which he afterwards attributed to himself. There were many
prominent divines at Pontefract who were heart and soul with the
Pilgrims. One of these, Friar John Pickering for example, would have
been asked to preach if it had been known that the Archbishop was such a
convinced supporter of passive obedience. In spite of his subsequent
protests, Lee was regarded on all hands as the ecclesiastical leader of
the opposition to Cromwell’s innovations. So long as conservatism was
safe, he had been a bigoted conservative[1809]. He had vigorously
attacked the very moderate reforming tendencies of Erasmus[1810]. He is
supposed to have burnt a man and a woman at York for heresy, although
the evidence in this case is defective[1811]. It was at this very time
reported in the host on the authority of Sir Robert Oughtred that Lee
had said “that there was no way for the commons but battle.”[1812] His
determination to preach was opposed by three of his chaplains and his
suffragan, but it does not appear whether they knew what he was going to
say, or merely did not wish him to preach at all[1813].

Service was held in the parish church of Pontefract on the morning of
Sunday 3 December before nine o’clock. Lord Darcy was not present[1814],
but everyone else thronged to hear the Archbishop’s sermon. It seems
that the gentlemen and divines filled the body of the church, and that
most of the commons were in a gallery, “up a height in the
church.”[1815]

Lee afterwards represented himself as coming to the pulpit “indifferent
to live or die,” resolved only to save the bodies and souls of his flock
by telling them at any cost that they did evil in resisting the
King[1816]. But this was not what his audience anticipated, and it was
some time before the drift of his sermon appeared. His text
unfortunately has not been preserved, but he began his discourse by
speaking of the sacraments of baptism, penance and communion, and of the
creed, which had been set forth in the Ten Articles of Religion[1817].
This was non-controversial matter, as the Ten Articles were accepted by
both parties. He next ventured on the rather bolder assertion that lands
which were given to the Church might not be put to profane uses. This
was what the congregation expected, and they waited eagerly for what
followed. The Archbishop continued that priests ought not to fight in
any circumstances[1818]; as for making a “peregrynage”—and on this word
he paused[1819]. There was a little stir and bustle round the door, and
Lancaster Herald came into the church. He had arrived with the
safeconduct, and very properly attended divine service on Sunday morning
at the first opportunity[1820].

The appearance of the Herald had a decisive influence on the
Archbishop’s sermon. It either gave him courage to carry out his purpose
of condemning the Pilgrimage[1821], as he said, or drove away the little
courage that he had and prevented him from blessing it, as his audience
believed[1822]. After this little pause he took up his discourse again
and declared that in the King’s Book of Articles the Faith was
sufficiently determined, that the sword was given to none but a prince,
and that no man might draw it but by his prince’s orders.

At this the fury of the commons broke loose. They cried out that the
Archbishop was a false dissembler[1823], and in the midst of the uproar
Aske and the other gentlemen hurried Lee away[1824]. He afterwards dwelt
pathetically on the danger that he had incurred[1825], but it cannot
have been very great, as it appears that the commons were some distance
from him in the gallery, and that he was surrounded by the gentlemen,
who, however angry they might be, would do him no bodily harm. Darcy did
not think much of his peril. He told the Archbishop that he reckoned
that the King and his honourable councillors would accept him after the
true meaning of that and all his sermons, without his seeking the King’s
favour by desiring, in letters, to die for his faith. “Whosoever desires
such high perfection may, with the King’s licence, be sped in Africa or
Turkey.”[1826] Darcy obtained “such high perfection” much nearer home,
but it was denied to Archbishop Lee.

It was natural that the gentlemen should resent Lee’s sermon. When a man
is risking his lands and life for a cause, it is very annoying to be
told by the representative of that cause that he is acting wickedly, and
that the cause has no need of him. Lee dined with Darcy that Sunday, and
begged him to use his influence for peace[1827], but it may be imagined
that he was not very warmly received. He heard many unfavourable
opinions of his sermon in the next few days. Sir Robert Constable used
“cruel words far unfitting to be uttered by his mouth against me that
have the cure of his soul,” complained the aggrieved Archbishop[1828].
To appease the commons and perhaps to give vent to his own feelings,
Constable had said that the Archbishop would make amends hereafter. As
soon as he was safely home at Cawood, Lee wrote to remonstrate with Sir
Robert for using such words, and declared that he had nothing to make
amends for[1829]. Robert Aske was reported to have said that if he had
known what the sermon would be he would have pulled Lee out of the
pulpit[1830], but what he really said was that if he had known “my lord
of York would preach as he did, he should not have preached.”[1831] Lee
was told that when Darcy heard that he had said no one might lawfully
resist the King, he exclaimed “By God’s mother that is not true.”[1832]
Lee wrote to complain of this to Darcy, who denied the words; but the
bitterly contemptuous tone of his letter shows what he thought of the
Archbishop[1833].

All this chorus of condemnation arouses a certain amount of sympathy for
the Archbishop in the modern mind. The doctrine of non-resistance at its
highest is perhaps the noblest conceivable. Lee was upholding
non-resistance, and there is an odd resemblance between his position and
that of the Tolstoian hero in Zangwill’s _War God_. But the likeness
breaks down when tested. In order to win acceptance the professor of
non-resistance must be unflinchingly brave and absolutely consistent.
Lee did not fulfil either of these conditions. He had not dared to
proclaim his doctrine, or he would not have been allowed to preach that
day, and he did not protest against all war. On the contrary, he praised
those who fought for the King and condemned only rebellion. Finally even
non-resisters agree that a body of men may unite to indicate peacefully
but firmly that they disapprove of the government’s action. At this
crisis of the Pilgrimage there was a reasonable hope that the Pilgrims
would obtain all they desired by peaceful means if they stood firmly
together. Lee’s sermon did a great deal to destroy that hope. This was
far from being his intention. Whatever may be thought of his conduct, it
is quite certain that he sincerely desired peace. Yet he had adopted a
very unfortunate method of bringing it about. His sermon not only
exasperated the commons, but increased their constant suspicion of the
gentlemen. After the fiasco in Lincolnshire they naturally feared that
the gentlemen would make their own peace with the King and abandon the
commons to Cromwell’s vengeance. Lee’s condemnation of the Pilgrimage
increased this distrust. It seemed only too probable that he had been
inspired by the leaders, who might already have secretly come to terms
with Norfolk. If this were so, they were now anxious to dismiss the
commons to their homes in order that, disunited and helpless, they might
fall into the hands of the royal troops. On account of these inevitable
suspicions Aske deeply regretted that he had allowed the Archbishop to
preach. The sermon had the air of an official statement, and though Lee
might have made himself safe with the King, he had embarrassed the
position of the leaders. Quarrelling broke out among the commons, and
tumults arose. Aske’s servants cut the red crosses off the coat of
Richard Bowyer, who was in the coat at the time. It does not appear what
he had done to annoy them, but he seems to have been a meddlesome
fellow. Sir George Lawson expressed a wish to know what the assembly of
divines resolved upon, and Bowyer tried to be present at their meeting.
He succeeded in entering the room while they were at dinner, but when
they came back, they declined his offer to act as secretary and turned
him out[1834].

The convocation of divines met in the Priory on Monday 4 December[1835].
They were summoned to the Priory church by Dr William Cliff, chancellor
to the Archbishop of York, chaunter of York and rector of Waverton in
Cheshire[1836], who was acting for his master, and were led by the Prior
of Pontefract into a private chamber. The persons present were John
Ripley[1837], Abbot of Kirkstall; his chaplain; Dr Sherwood, chancellor
of Beverley minster[1838]; Dr Cliff; Dr Langrege, Archdeacon of
Cleveland[1839]; Dr Geoffrey Downes, Chancellor of York; Dr John
Brandsby, the Archbishop’s chaplain and master of the collegiate church
of Sutton[1840]; Dr Cuthbert Marshall, Archdeacon of Nottingham; James
Thwaites, Prior of Pontefract; Dr Waldby, rector of Kirk Deighton and
prebendary of Carlisle; Dr Pickering the Friar Preacher; Dr Rokeby; a
friar; Dr George Palmes, rector of Sutton-upon-Derwent[1841]; and Dr
Dakyn, rector of Kirkby Ravensworth and vicar-general of York, who was
requested to sit in the midst and take the minutes. The Prior of
Pontefract and the friar seem to have been the only persons present who
were not doctors either of law or of divinity[1842].

The divines had before them the questions and propositions which Aske
had originally sent to Lee, but Aske said that they made no direct reply
to his list, and that he could not remember who drew up the questions
which they answered[1843]. These questions may perhaps have been
Chaloner’s interrogatories concerning heresy[1844].

The divines’ first resolution was:—

  “We thynke yt preachynge agaynste purgatory, worshuppynge of Sayntes,
  pylgrymage, Images and all bookes set forth agenst ye same or
  sacramentes or sacramentallis of ye Churche be worthy to be reproved
  and condempned by Convocacion, and ye payne to be executed yt is
  devysed for ye doars to ye contrary, and proces to be made herafter in
  heresye as was in ye dayes of kynge henry ye 1111 th and ye new
  statutes wherby heresyes now lately have ben greatly norysshed to be
  annolled and abrogated, and yt ye holydaes may be observed accordyng
  to ye lawes and lawdable Customes, and yt ye byddynge of beadys and
  preachinge may be observed as hath ben used by olde Custume.”[1845]

Over this there was little debate, for even Archbishop Lee objected to
the abolition of holydays[1846], but the second resolution was that

  “ye kynges highnes ne any temporall man may not be supreme hedd of ye
  churche by ye lawes of god to have or exercise any jurysdiccons or
  poer spirituall in ye same, and all actes of parliamente made to ye
  contrary to be revoked.”

There was a long discussion over this. Marshall, Pickering, Brandsby and
Waldby maintained the papal cause, urging the primacy of St Peter. The
three last named had been present in Convocation when the momentous
resolution in the King’s favour was passed. They took out of their
purses protests which had been made then[1847], and complained that the
saving clause “in quantum per legem Christi licet[1848]” was omitted.
Dakyn, Cliff and Rokeby thought that the question ought to be referred
to a General Council. Dakyn was not opposed to some limitation of the
Pope’s authority, for he had been in the Court of Arches and had learnt
there how much trouble and delay were caused by appeals to Rome. Dr
Sherwood was more inclined to the royal supremacy than the rest. Finally
they agreed that the King might retain the title of “Caput Ecclesiæ,”
but that he might exercise no jurisdiction such as visitation[1849].

The third question seems to have referred to Mary’s legitimacy, upon
which they resolved

  “we be not suffycyently instructed in ye facte ne in ye proces therin
  made but we refarre it to ye determynation of ye Churche to whom it
  was appealed.”

The other resolutions were

  “yt no clerke oughte to be put to death withoute degradacyon by ye
  lawes of ye Churche.

  yt no man ought to be drawen owte of sentuary but in certayne causes
  expressed in ye lawes of ye Churche.

  To ye vi^{th} we saye yt ye clargye of ye northe parties hath not
  graunted nor consentyd to ye pamente of ye tenthes or ffyrste frutes
  of benefices in ye Convocan and also we may make no suche personall
  graunte by ye lawes of ye Churche and we thynke yt no temporall man
  hathe auctoryte by ye lawes of god to claym any suche tenthes or
  ffyrst frutes of any benyfyce or spirituall promocyon.

  To ye vii^{th} we thinke yt landis gyven to god, ye churche or
  relygyouse men ma not betaken away and put to prophane uses by ye
  lawes of god.

  To ye viii^{th} we thynke yt dispensacons upon Iuste causes lawfully
  graunted by ye pope of Rome to be good and to be accepted, and pardons
  have ben allowed by generall Counsels of lateran and Vyenna and by
  lawes of ye churche.

  To ye ix^{th} we thynke yt by ye lawes of ye Churche, Generall
  counselles, interpreta [_torn_] ys of approved doctors and consente of
  Crysten people ye poope of Rome hath ben taken for ye hedd of ye
  Churche and Vycare of Cryste and so oughte to be taken.

  To ye x^{th} we thinke yt ye examynacon and Correxion of dedly synne
  belongith to ye mynisters of ye Churche by ye lawes of ye same, wch be
  consonante to goddes lawes.”

This was the conclusion of the interrogatories, which were ten in
number. In the debate Cliff and Palmes were most eager for the repeal of
the various statutes, and Dakyn for the restoration of the monasteries,
as he had been very much shocked by the profanation of sacred
things[1850].

In the afternoon Aske himself brought the laymen’s articles to the
divines. He found them sitting with their books before them, and with
their articles almost ready[1851]. They read over the laymen’s petition
to the King, but they did not consider the temporal articles within
their province. Aske offered to lend them a book written by the Bishop
of Rochester [Fisher], which would assist them if they were in any
difficulty[1852], and besought them to speak their minds on all points
openly and without fear[1853]. He himself was ready to fight and die for
the old faith and the papal supremacy[1854].

On Tuesday 5 December the divines debated on the first eight articles of
the petition, namely (1) the suppression of heresies, (2) the supremacy
of the Pope, (3) the legitimacy of Mary, (4) the restoration of the
abbeys, (5) the abolition of tenths and first fruits, (6) the
restoration of the Friars Observants, (7) the punishment of heretics,
(8) the punishment of Cromwell, Audley and Rich.

In this they were going over the same ground as on the day before, and
they had only to confirm the lay articles. In addition to their answers
to the questions which they had received, the divines passed some
resolutions of their own:—

  “ffarther we thynke it convenyente yt ye lawes of ye churche may be
  openly redde in Unyversyties as hath ben used here to ffore, and yt
  suche clarkys as be in pryson or ffledde owte of ye realme for
  withstandyng ye kynges supporyorite in ye Church may be set at
  lybertye and restored withoute danger and yt suche bookys and workes
  as do entreate of ye primacye of ye Churche of Rome may be ffrely
  kepte and redde notwithstandyng any prohybyssion to ye contrary and yt
  ye artycles of praemynire may be declared by actes of parlamente to
  the entente no man be in daunger therof withoute a prohibicyon fyrste
  awarded and yt suche apostataes as be goon from relygion withoute
  suffycyente and lawfull dyspensacyon of ye See of Rome may be
  compelled to returne to theyre howses, and yt all Sommes of mony as
  tenthes fyrste frutes and other Arreragis [_torn_] graunted unto ye
  kynges highnes by parlyamente or convocacyon and dew to be payed
  before ye fyrst day of ye nexte parliament may be remytted and
  forgyven for ye causes and reasones above expressed.

  And we ye saide clargie saye yt for lacke of tyme and instruccyon in
  thies artycles and wante of bookys we declare this our opynyon for
  this tyme refarrynge our determynacon in ye premysses to ye nexte
  Convocacyon.

  Also we desyre yt ye statute Cammanndynge ye clergye to exhibyte ye
  dyspensacons graunted by ye pope byfore ye ffeaste of michelmas nexte
  commynge may be revoked at ye nexte parliamente.”

On Tuesday evening the articles were ready, and the assembled divines
carried them to the Archbishop[1855]. Aske was present[1856], as Lee had
been urging him to come to terms with Norfolk, to disclose everything,
and to inquire whether Lee should proceed with the collection of the
tenth[1857]. The Archbishop read over the articles, but when he came to
the declaration of the papal supremacy, he objected that it was
unnecessary. There was a long debate over this. Marshall and Pickering
defended the article[1858]. Aske questioned the Archbishop as to what he
really believed on this point. Lee replied that the supremacy touching
the cure of souls did not belong to the King, but the punishment of sin
rested with him as the head of his people, and therein he was supreme
head. Aske was surprised at the distinction, as he had never before
heard anyone make it[1859]. In the end Lee permitted the clause to
stand, as it expressed the consent of Christian people[1860]. The
articles were then delivered to Aske[1861]. That night, probably after
they had left Lee’s presence, Aske laid before the divines the problem
which the Archbishop had solved in so unexpected a fashion. Was it ever
lawful for subjects to resist their sovereign? To this they returned no
answer[1862], but on the whole their attitude was much more
satisfactory, from Aske’s point of view, than Lee’s had been. Their
resolutions were certainly bold enough; probably the timid spirits were
encouraged and hurried on by the ardour of Pickering and the more
enthusiastic priests. It is true that afterwards they all represented
themselves as having been in terror of the commons, but the statement of
Dakyn, who was a very simpleminded man, throws some light on that point.
He explained that when he, Marshall and Cliff were summoned to court to
account for their conduct, they agreed together that they would say they
had done everything from fear; and Dakyn innocently goes on to repeat
exactly the words they had agreed upon, that every man came through
fear, and was weary of his part, and doubtful what to do[1863]. If this
were true, the reason of the Pilgrims’ failure is not far to seek. No
one could drag to victory such very flabby and reluctant upholders of
the Church. But a statement made with such an obvious motive does not
command much belief. No doubt the priests were anxious and afraid. An
assembly of elderly clergymen are very uncomfortably situated in the
midst of a rebel army, and very dangerously employed in drawing up a
manifesto hostile to the government. But it was the King, not the
commons, whom they chiefly feared.

On this point Aske was closely interrogated. After some questions as to
the matters laid before the clergy, he was asked, “Was it not a double
iniquity to fall into rebellion and also after to procure matter to be
set forth to justify that rebellion?”[1864] To which he replied with
that touch of humour which is sometimes perceptible in his answers, “If
the clergy did declare their minds contrary to the laws of God, it was a
double iniquity,” and again, “as he thinks, the spiritual men were
willing enough of themselves to declare their minds as they did in those
points that they answered unto, but in that point, whether subjects
might fight against their prince, he thinks they were not willing,
because they made no determination at all touching the same.”[1865]

In short, it is an injustice to the learned men to say that they did not
mean what they resolved. Aske expressed the confidence of all the
Pilgrims when he said, “They thought none other like but that the said
clergy would have showed their minds according to their learning and
conscience, and [they] had no violence offered them in the world to do
the contrary.”[1866]


                          NOTES TO CHAPTER XIV

Note A. The points which indicate that this paper was drawn up by Aske
are:

(1) The questions are not the same as those which were laid before the
clergy at Pontefract, and Aske said afterwards that his questions were
not used there[1867].

(2) Several of the questions are on points on which Aske was examined,
e.g. the contradictory oaths, the rights of the Church according to
Magna Carta, and the Statute of Uses. The opinions expressed in the
questions agree with those in Aske’s replies.

(3) The questions were found together with a paper in Latin on the
clause in the Creed “Credo in Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam.”[1868] This
paper would probably be given to Archbishop Lee, who also had Aske’s
questions in his possession[1869]. He may have sent both to the King
together.

Note B. The Articles of Pontefract are printed in the Letters and
Papers, XI, 1246, in Speed’s History of Great Britain, Book IX, chap.
21, and in Froude’s History of England, II, chap. XIII, in a foot-note.
In the present work the articles have been grouped in a new order, but
the numbering of the original order has been retained for convenience of
reference.

Note C. Against this article is written “ney,” but it is uncertain when
or by whom the note was made. It is difficult to believe that there was
a division of opinion among the Pilgrims as to the conduct of the
notorious commissioners, and there seems to be no reason to suppose that
this article was opposed or rejected after it was laid before the
general council, for Aske stated that “they all agreed to the Articles
and none to the contrary of them.”[1870] Possibly the word may have been
written when Aske was being examined to indicate that he had not yet
been interrogated on this article, as his reply to it occurs in his last
examination[1871].

“Non” is written in the margin against article 9, probably for a similar
reason.

Note D. Bye-elections were not accepted as a constitutional practice
even as late as the seventeenth century[1872].

Note E. The boroughs were Ripon, Doncaster, Tickhill, Ravenspur, Yarm,
Pickering, Hedon, Beverley, Thirsk, Northallerton, Malton,
Knaresborough, Pontefract, Hull and Scarborough[1873].

The other northern counties had electoral grievances as well as
Yorkshire, for instance, Durham was not represented at all. The members
for Cumberland in 1523 were nominated by the King but this was because
no one would volunteer to stand[1874].

Note F. The name is illegible in his confession[1875], and as he had
received his benefice in August 1536 it cannot be discovered from the
Valor Ecclesiasticus. Dakyn, however, mentions that Dr Rokeby was at
Pontefract[1876], and the unknown writer names his uncle William Rokeby.
Friar Pickering adds to the list of divines, Mr Bachelor of Meux and a
secular man. He also says that the friar was an Observant[1877].

Note G. There are galleries in All Hallows, the parish Church of
Pontefract, at the present day[1878], but as the church was almost
completely destroyed during the Civil War it is impossible to say
whether there were galleries in the original building[1879].

Note H. These articles are printed by Strype, Memorials, I (ii), 266,
and by Wilkins, Concilia, III, 812, but as neither of these copies is
very accurate a fresh one has been made from the original in the British
Museum, Cotton MS. Cleop. E. V, 381 (old numbering), 413 (modern
numbering). A very much condensed summary is printed in the Letters and
Papers, XI, 1245. The Articles are also printed in “The Acts of the
Northern Convocation” (Surtees Soc.), but they are erroneously
represented as being the reply of the Northern Convocation to the King’s
Ten Articles.


                           END OF VOLUME ONE.


     CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

-----

Footnote 1:

  28 Hen. VIII, c. 7.

Footnote 2:

  L. and P. Hen. VIII, XI, 148.

Footnote 3:

  Ibid. preface, p. iv, and No. 6.

Footnote 4:

  Ibid. X, 1134, 1150.

Footnote 5:

  Cunningham, The Growth of Eng. Ind. and Com. I, chap. V, sections 1
  and 6.

Footnote 6:

  L. and P. VIII, 121.

Footnote 7:

  L. and P. XI, 1244.

Footnote 8:

  Ibid. 1182.

Footnote 9:

  Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons, I, pt III, chap. XVII.

Footnote 10:

  Dictionary of National Biography; Merriman, Life and Letters of Thomas
  Cromwell, I, chap. VI.

Footnote 11:

  Ibid. I, chap. I.

Footnote 12:

  Ibid. I, chap. IV.

Footnote 13:

  21 Hen. VIII, c. 13.

Footnote 14:

  Dixon, Hist. of the Ch. of Eng. I, chap. I.

Footnote 15:

  28 Hen. VIII, c. 13.

Footnote 16:

  Dixon, op. cit. I, chap. I.

Footnote 17:

  Ibid.

Footnote 18:

  22 Hen. VIII, c. 15.

Footnote 19:

  Gee and Hardy, Doc. illus. of Eng. Ch. Hist. nos. XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII.

Footnote 20:

  23 Hen. VIII, c. 20.

Footnote 21:

  25 Hen. VIII, c. 20.

Footnote 22:

  Gee and Hardy, op. cit. no. LVIII.

Footnote 23:

  Ibid. no. LIX.

Footnote 24:

  26 Hen. VIII, c. 1.

Footnote 25:

  L. and P. VIII, 623.

Footnote 26:

  Dixon, op. cit. I, chap. IV.

Footnote 27:

  27 Hen. VIII, c. 28.

Footnote 28:

  27 Hen. VIII, c. 14.

Footnote 29:

  28 Hen. VIII, c. 10.

Footnote 30:

  25 Hen. VIII, c. 21.

Footnote 31:

  28 Hen. VIII, c. 16.

Footnote 32:

  L. and P. XI, 148.

Footnote 33:

  21 Hen. VIII, c. 2; 23 Hen. VIII, c. 1.

Footnote 34:

  28 Hen. VIII, b. XIII, 1.

Footnote 35:

  Hardwick, Hist. of the Articles, chap. III.

Footnote 36:

  Ibid. App. I.

Footnote 37:

  Ibid. chap. III.

Footnote 38:

  Frere and Kennedy, Visitation Articles and Injunctions, II, 5, n. 3.

Footnote 39:

  Frere and Kennedy, Visitation Articles and Injunctions, II, 1 et seq.

Footnote 40:

  Wriothesley, Chronicle (Camden Soc.), I, 55, n.

Footnote 41:

  25 Hen. VIII, c. 22.

Footnote 42:

  26 Hen. VIII, c. 2.

Footnote 43:

  26 Hen. VIII, c. 13.

Footnote 44:

  L. and P. VIII, preface, p. xxxiv, n.

Footnote 45:

  Froude, Reign of Henry VIII, II, chap. IX; Cal. of Venetian St. P. V,
  no. 125; Pollard, Henry VIII, chap. XII.

Footnote 46:

  Froude, loc. cit.

Footnote 47:

  Cunningham, op. cit. chap. V, section 6.

Footnote 48:

  Dowell, Hist. of Tax in Eng. I, Bk III, chap. I, pt II, sections 1 and
  2.

Footnote 49:

  27 Hen. VIII, c. 10. See F. Pollock, The Land Laws (The English
  Citizen Series), 89–104; Holdsworth, Hist. of Eng. Law, I, 241.

Footnote 50:

  27 Hen. VIII, c. 12.

Footnote 51:

  See below, chap. IV.

Footnote 52:

  25 Hen. VIII, c. 13.

Footnote 53:

  27 Hen. VIII, c. 22.

Footnote 54:

  Leadam, Select Cases in the Court of Star Chamber (Selden Soc.), II,
  pp. xxxviii-liv.

Footnote 55:

  25 Hen. VIII, c. 2.

Footnote 56:

  See below, chap. IV.

Footnote 57:

  D. N. B., Pole and Courtenay.

Footnote 58:

  Ibid. Stafford.

Footnote 59:

  L. and P. III (1) 1293.

Footnote 60:

  L. and P. XI, 92.

Footnote 61:

  Haile, Life of Reginald Pole.

Footnote 62:

  Haile, Life of Reginald Pole, chap. IX.

Footnote 63:

  Ibid. chap. X.

Footnote 64:

  See note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 65:

  Pollard, op. cit. chap. XIII.

Footnote 66:

  D. N. B., Darcy.

Footnote 67:

  See note B at end of chapter.

Footnote 68:

  L. and P. XII (1) 667; printed in full, Papers of the Earl of
  Hardwicke, I, 41.

Footnote 69:

  D. N. B. loc. cit.

Footnote 70:

  Ibid.

Footnote 71:

  L. and P. V, 805.

Footnote 72:

  L. and P. XII (1) 901, p. 410.

Footnote 73:

  L. and P. VII, 121.

Footnote 74:

  L. and P. XII (2) 186 (63).

Footnote 75:

  Tonge’s Visitation of Yorks. (Surtees Soc.), p. 22.

Footnote 76:

  D. N. B., Hussey.

Footnote 77:

  L. and P. XI, 969.

Footnote 78:

  D. N. B. loc. cit. J. H. Round, Peerage Studies, Henry VIII and the
  Peers.

Footnote 79:

  L. and P. VII, 1036; op. cit. vol. XI, no. 222.

Footnote 80:

  L. and P. XII (1) no. 899; printed in part by Froude, op. cit. II,
  chap. XIV.

Footnote 81:

  L. and P. vol. VII, no. 1206.

Footnote 82:

  Ibid. VIII, 750.

Footnote 83:

  Ibid. VII, 1206.

Footnote 84:

  Ibid. 962 (X).

Footnote 85:

  Ibid. VIII, Preface, pp. ii-iv.

Footnote 86:

  L. and P. VIII, 355.

Footnote 87:

  Ibid. VII, 1206.

Footnote 88:

  Ibid. VIII, 272.

Footnote 89:

  Ibid. I.

Footnote 90:

  Ibid. Preface, pp. i-ii.

Footnote 91:

  See note C at end of chapter.

Footnote 92:

  L. and P. VIII, 750.

Footnote 93:

  L. and P. XII (1) 576.

Footnote 94:

  L. and P. VIII, 1018.

Footnote 95:

  L. and P. VII, 1426; ibid. VIII, Preface, p. iii.

Footnote 96:

  L. and P. IX, 776.

Footnote 97:

  See note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 98:

  L. and P. IX, 861.

Footnote 99:

  Ibid. VII, 1036.

Footnote 100:

  L. and P. XI, 222.

Footnote 101:

  Ibid. 7.

Footnote 102:

  Ibid.

Footnote 103:

  Ibid. 219; 220.

Footnote 104:

  Ibid. 10.

Footnote 105:

  Ibid. 222.

Footnote 106:

  Ibid. 969.

Footnote 107:

  See chap. X.

Footnote 108:

  Lapsley, County Palatine of Durham (Harvard Hist. Studies), p. 259.

Footnote 109:

  L. and P. XII (2), 186 (38).

Footnote 110:

  L. and P. IV (2), 4336.

Footnote 111:

  De Fonblanque, Annals of the House of Percy, I, chap. IX.

Footnote 112:

  Ibid.

Footnote 113:

  De Fonblanque, Annals of the House of Percy, I, chap. IX; cf.
  Wriothesley, Chronicle (Camden Soc.), Introduction, vol. I, p.
  xxxviii.

Footnote 114:

  L. and P. VIII, 80, 255, 1143; XII (2) 1090.

Footnote 115:

  L. and P. VIII, 1, 121.

Footnote 116:

  L. and P. VIII, 166.

Footnote 117:

  L. and P. V, 727; cf. XII (1) 1090.

Footnote 118:

  L. and P. VIII, 1143.

Footnote 119:

  De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, chap. IX; L. and P. XII (1), 577.

Footnote 120:

  L. and P. VIII, 166.

Footnote 121:

  L. and P. XI, 714.

Footnote 122:

  27 Hen. VIII, c. 47.

Footnote 123:

  De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, chap. IX.

Footnote 124:

  L. and P. X, 246 (12), (13).

Footnote 125:

  L. and P. VIII, 1143 (4).

Footnote 126:

  L. and P. XII (1), 491, 393; printed in full, de Fonblanque, op. cit.
  I, chap. IX.

Footnote 127:

  L. and P. XI, 785.

Footnote 128:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1090.

Footnote 129:

  Dic. of Nat. Biog., Henry Clifford, 1st Earl of Cumberland.

Footnote 130:

  Star Chamber Proceedings, Henry VIII, Bundle XXX, no. 6; and see
  below.

Footnote 131:

  L. and P. XI, 1236; printed in full, State Papers, I, 521.

Footnote 132:

  L. and P. XII (1) 372, and see Dic. Nat. Biog. loc. cit.

Footnote 133:

  J. Scott, Berwick-upon-Tweed, chap. VII.

Footnote 134:

  L. and P. XII (1), 419.

Footnote 135:

  L. and P. XI, 993; XII (1) 439.

Footnote 136:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 137:

  L. and P. XI, 503.

Footnote 138:

  Foster, Durham Visitation Pedigrees, Bowes.

Footnote 139:

  Plantagenet-Harrison, Hist. of Yorks., Aske of Aske.

Footnote 140:

  L. and P. XI. 1143.

Footnote 141:

  F. W. Maitland, The Year Books of Edward II (Selden Soc.).

Footnote 142:

  L. and P. XII (2), 100.

Footnote 143:

  Tonge’s Visitation of Yorks. (Surtees Soc.), p. 25.

Footnote 144:

  L. and P. I, 4462.

Footnote 145:

  Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, vol. II, no. 134; L. and P. II, 2733.

Footnote 146:

  Hall, Chronicle, ann. 1519.

Footnote 147:

  Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII, I, chap. XIII.

Footnote 148:

  Ibid. I, chap. XI.

Footnote 149:

  Halliwell-Phillipps, Letters of the Kings of England, I, Hen. VIII to
  the Earl of Surrey.

Footnote 150:

  Raine, Testa. Ebor. (Surtees Soc.) VI, 306.

Footnote 151:

  See above, chap. II.

Footnote 152:

  Raine, loc. cit.

Footnote 153:

  Tonge, op. cit. 25.

Footnote 154:

  Raine, op. cit. VI, 306.

Footnote 155:

  Tonge, op. cit. 25.

Footnote 156:

  Ord, Hist. of Cleveland, Pedigree of Bulmer; Brenan and Statham, The
  House of Howard, I, chap. V.

Footnote 157:

  Foster, Yorkshire Visitation Pedigrees, Bulmer of Pinchinthorpe.

Footnote 158:

  Wriothesley, Chron. (Camden Soc.) I, 64.

Footnote 159:

  Grey Friars’ Chron. (Camden Soc.) p. 41; see note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 160:

  L. and P. XII (1) 1199 (2).

Footnote 161:

  Ibid. 236.

Footnote 162:

  Foster, op. cit., Bulmer of Pinchinthorpe.

Footnote 163:

  L. and P. XII (1), 66, 236.

Footnote 164:

  Tonge, op. cit. 25.

Footnote 165:

  Dur. Cursitor’s Rec. portf. 171, no. 2.

Footnote 166:

  L. and P. XIII (1) 366, 707.

Footnote 167:

  Raine, op. cit. IV, 215 n.

Footnote 168:

  Tonge, op. cit. 67.

Footnote 169:

  Ibid. 64.

Footnote 170:

  See above.

Footnote 171:

  Raine, op. cit. V, 306 n.

Footnote 172:

  Archaeologia Aeliana (new ser.) III, 214.

Footnote 173:

  L. and P. VIII, 135.

Footnote 174:

  Raine, op. cit. VI, 68 n.; Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. VIII, 404.

Footnote 175:

  Raine, op. cit. V, 55.

Footnote 176:

  Ibid. VI, 223.

Footnote 177:

  Dic. Nat. Biog., Francis Bigod; Raine, op. cit. V, 55.

Footnote 178:

  Dic. Nat. Biog. loc. cit.

Footnote 179:

  L. and P. VIII, 135, 735; XI, 23.

Footnote 180:

  Tonge, op. cit. 67.

Footnote 181:

  L. and P. XII (1) 271.

Footnote 182:

  Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. II, 246–51.

Footnote 183:

  Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, XXVII, no. 131.

Footnote 184:

  Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. II, 246–51.

Footnote 185:

  L. and P. IX, 216.

Footnote 186:

  L. and P. X, 47–49, 238.

Footnote 187:

  Ibid. 611, 679.

Footnote 188:

  Ibid. 1167.

Footnote 189:

  Dic. Nat. Biog. loc. cit.

Footnote 190:

  L. and P. VIII, 849, 854, 869, 1082.

Footnote 191:

  Ibid. 1025, 1033, 1069.

Footnote 192:

  Ibid. IX, 37.

Footnote 193:

  L. and P. X, 49.

Footnote 194:

  Ibid. 742.

Footnote 195:

  Tonge, op. cit. 68.

Footnote 196:

  Gentleman’s Mag. 1835 (1), pp. 151–2.

Footnote 197:

  L. and P. XII (1), 851; see note B at end of chapter.

Footnote 198:

  Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIII.

Footnote 199:

  Dic. Nat. Biog., Robert Constable.

Footnote 200:

  See above, chap. II.

Footnote 201:

  Arch. Ael. (new ser.), vol. III, p. 214.

Footnote 202:

  Ibid. p. 225.

Footnote 203:

  L. and P. II, 2735.

Footnote 204:

  Ibid. 3446.

Footnote 205:

  Gentleman’s Mag. 1835 (1), p. 153.

Footnote 206:

  L. and P. III (1), 654–5.

Footnote 207:

  Ibid. 1236, 1260.

Footnote 208:

  L. and P. III (2), 3240; cf. Brown, Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks.
  Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), I, nos. IX and LXXXI.

Footnote 209:

  Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, bundle 22 no. 162.

Footnote 210:

  The Plumpton Letters (Camden Soc.), vol. IV (1839), pp. 227–8; Brown,
  Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.) I, no. XXVII.

Footnote 211:

  L. and P. XIII (1) 708.

Footnote 212:

  A. F. Leach, Beverley Town Documents (Selden Soc.), preface, p. xxxvi,
  pp. 64, 65.

Footnote 213:

  Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. VIII, p. 401.

Footnote 214:

  Archaeological Journ. XXV, 170.

Footnote 215:

  J. Foster, Glover’s Visitation of Yorks. p. 441.

Footnote 216:

  Tonge, op. cit. 64.

Footnote 217:

  Raine, Testa. Ebor. (Surtees Soc.) IV, 123.

Footnote 218:

  Tonge, op. cit. 64.

Footnote 219:

  Raine, op. cit. IV, 257.

Footnote 220:

  Ibid. VI. 21.

Footnote 221:

  For the marriages of the Askes see Flower’s Visit. of Yorks. (Harl.
  Soc.), XVI, 7; B. M. Add. MS 38133, fol. 45b–46a.

Footnote 222:

  See below, chap. VI.

Footnote 223:

  L. and P. XI, 622; XII (1), 852.

Footnote 224:

  L. and P. XII (1), 191.

Footnote 225:

  Durham Cursitor’s Rec. portf. 177, no. 9.

Footnote 226:

  Tonge, op. cit. 64.

Footnote 227:

  Raine, Testa. Ebor. VI, 165.

Footnote 228:

  L. and P. XVI, 653; XVII, 8, 283 (8).

Footnote 229:

  Raine, op. cit. IV, 123; L. and P. XII (1), 1186 and 1321.

Footnote 230:

  Raine, Mem. of Hexham Priory (Surtees Soc.), I, App. p. clxii n.

Footnote 231:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1321.

Footnote 232:

  Raine, loc. cit.

Footnote 233:

  Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, Bundle XXVII, no. 143.

Footnote 234:

  Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, Bundle XXVII, no. 135; cf. Bundle
  XVIII, no. 164, printed in full, Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks.
  Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), II, no. 15.

Footnote 235:

  Star Chamber Proc. Henry VIII, Bundle XXX, no. 6.

Footnote 236:

  Raine, Mem. of Hexham Priory, I, p. clxii.

Footnote 237:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1321.

Footnote 238:

  Raine, op. cit. p. clxii.

Footnote 239:

  See below, chap. XIX.

Footnote 240:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1186.

Footnote 241:

  Arch. Journ. XXV, 171.

Footnote 242:

  Ibid.; facsimile in Gentleman’s Magazine, Aug. 1754. See note C at end
  of chapter.

Footnote 243:

  See note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 244:

  Raine, Testa. Ebor. VI, 21; Exch. Inq. ser. 2, 983/4.

Footnote 245:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1223, 1224.

Footnote 246:

  Notes and Queries, 11th ser. vol. IV, p. 441.

Footnote 247:

  Ibid.

Footnote 248:

  L. and P. XI, 1175.

Footnote 249:

  Hall, Chronicle, ann. 1536.

Footnote 250:

  L. and P. XI, 1103.

Footnote 251:

  See note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 252:

  L. and P. VIII, 475, 892; IX, 463.

Footnote 253:

  L. and P. IX, 37.

Footnote 254:

  Ibid. 463.

Footnote 255:

  L. and P. IX, 404.

Footnote 256:

  See note F at end of chapter.

Footnote 257:

  L. and P. VIII, 457.

Footnote 258:

  L. and P. XII (2), 369 (3).

Footnote 259:

  Ibid. 316, 369.

Footnote 260:

  Ibid.

Footnote 261:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, J. C. Cox, William Stapleton
  and the Pilgrimage of Grace; see note G at end of chapter.

Footnote 262:

  Yorks. Arch. and Top. Journ. VIII, p. 403.

Footnote 263:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392, see below, chap. VII.

Footnote 264:

  Now Hutton Wandesley in Long Marston parish.

Footnote 265:

  Yorks. Arch. Journ. XX, 362.

Footnote 266:

  Morris, The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, 1st Ser., The
  Bapthorpes.

Footnote 267:

  L. and P. VIII, 457; see note F at end of chapter.

Footnote 268:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 330 et seq.

Footnote 269:

  L. and P. XI, 1244.

Footnote 270:

  G. Brenan and E. P. Statham, op. cit. I, chap. V; Foster, loc. cit.

Footnote 271:

  Raine, Testa. Ebor. (Surtees Soc.), IV, 257; B. M. Add. MS 38133, f.
  45 b–46 a.

Footnote 272:

  Printed in full, Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec.
  Ser.), II, nos. xiv, xxiii, xxvii.

Footnote 273:

  Printed in full, Yorks. Star. Proc. (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), I,
  no. lxxxii.

Footnote 274:

  L. and P. VIII, 457. See below, chap. IV.

Footnote 275:

  William Stapleton and the Pilgrimage of Grace, Trans. of the East
  Riding Rec. Soc., vol. X.

Footnote 276:

  Gasquet, Hen. VIII and the Eng. Mon. I, chap. VI.

Footnote 277:

  Merriman, Life of Thomas Cromwell, I, chap. VII.

Footnote 278:

  Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Mon. I, chap. V.

Footnote 279:

  Brand, Newcastle-on-Tyne, I, 335 n.

Footnote 280:

  Gasquet, loc. cit.

Footnote 281:

  See note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 282:

  L. and P. VIII, 626; the document is quoted by Froude, op. cit. chap.
  XIV.

Footnote 283:

  L. and P. VIII, 624.

Footnote 284:

  L. and P. VII, 595; VIII, 480; IX, 189, 315.

Footnote 285:

  L. and P. X, 594; Gasquet, op. cit. II, chap. VII.

Footnote 286:

  L. and P. IX, 1118, printed in Latimer’s Sermons and Remains (Parker
  Soc.), II, 373.

Footnote 287:

  L. and P. IX, 179.

Footnote 288:

  L. and P. IX, 740.

Footnote 289:

  L. and P. X, 462.

Footnote 290:

  Ibid. 1027, 1099.

Footnote 291:

  Ibid. 790.

Footnote 292:

  L. and P. VIII, 480; IX, 704.

Footnote 293:

  L. and P. VIII, 20; X, 296.

Footnote 294:

  L. and P. IX, 1130.

Footnote 295:

  Ibid. 1091.

Footnote 296:

  L. and P. X, 804, 891.

Footnote 297:

  Dixon, Hist. of the Church of Eng. I, chap. IV.

Footnote 298:

  L. and P. IX, 100, X, 14.

Footnote 299:

  L. and P. IX, 408.

Footnote 300:

  L. and P. VIII, 406.

Footnote 301:

  L. and P. IX, 46; XII (2), 518.

Footnote 302:

  L. and P. IX, 1066.

Footnote 303:

  L. and P. VIII, 480; IX, 789.

Footnote 304:

  L. and P. VIII, 589, 770, 776; IX, 846; X, 1140; XII (2), 505.

Footnote 305:

  Barnes was afterwards (30 July 1540) put to death at Smithfield on the
  famous occasion when three heretics, of whom he was one, and three
  romanists were executed together.

Footnote 306:

  L. and P. IX, 1059.

Footnote 307:

  Bradfield St Clare.

Footnote 308:

  L. and P. VIII, 196, quoted by Merriman, op. cit. I, chap. VII; see
  note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 309:

  L. and P. VIII, 278; quoted by Merriman, loc. cit.

Footnote 310:

  L. and P. XIII (2), 307.

Footnote 311:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 312:

  L. and P. VIII, 844; IX, 864, 1123; X, 1205.

Footnote 313:

  L. and P. XI, 300 (ii); quoted by Merriman, loc. cit.

Footnote 314:

  L. and P. IX, 883.

Footnote 315:

  L. and P. X, 722.

Footnote 316:

  L. and P. IX, 74; quoted by Merriman, loc. cit.

Footnote 317:

  L. and P. XI, 407; Merriman, op. cit. II, nos. 161, 164; L. and P. XII
  (1), 109.

Footnote 318:

  L. and P. X, 693 (ii); see note F at end of chapter.

Footnote 319:

  L. and P. XII (1), 407.

Footnote 320:

  L. and P. VIII, 386.

Footnote 321:

  See note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 322:

  L. and P. VIII, 955.

Footnote 323:

  L. and P. IX, 704, 742; X, 172.

Footnote 324:

  L. and P. VIII, 1024.

Footnote 325:

  L. and P. VIII, 1020.

Footnote 326:

  Ibid. 1005; printed by Strype, Eccles. Mem. I (ii), 274.

Footnote 327:

  L. and P. IX, 135.

Footnote 328:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 329:

  L. and P. IX, 791.

Footnote 330:

  L. and P. VIII, 457. For the date see above, chap. III, note F.

Footnote 331:

  L. and P. VIII, 863, 970, 984, 991; IX, 150, 196, 427.

Footnote 332:

  L. and P. X, 77.

Footnote 333:

  Ibid. 733.

Footnote 334:

  Ibid. 745.

Footnote 335:

  L. and P. VI, 355, 537.

Footnote 336:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 337:

  See note B at end of chapter.

Footnote 338:

  L. and P. X, 1264.

Footnote 339:

  A. F. Pollard, Henry VIII, chap. XII.

Footnote 340:

  Froude, The Dissolution of the Monasteries, Frazer’s Mag. 1857.

Footnote 341:

  L. and P. X, 1221.

Footnote 342:

  L. and P. XI (1), 70 (xi), 481; XI, 854 (ii), 768 (2).

Footnote 343:

  L. and P. XI, 768 (2); printed in State Papers, I, 482.

Footnote 344:

  Ibid.

Footnote 345:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (vi).

Footnote 346:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 347:

  L. and P. XI, 768 (2); printed in St. P. I, 482.

Footnote 348:

  Ibid.

Footnote 349:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 350:

  L. and P. XI, 768 (2); printed in St. P. I, 482.

Footnote 351:

  L. and P. XII (1), 70 (x), (xi).

Footnote 352:

  L. and P. XI, 405.

Footnote 353:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901; see below, chap. VII.

Footnote 354:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; see below, chap. VII.

Footnote 355:

  L. and P. XI, 841; see below, chap. VII.

Footnote 356:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 331.

Footnote 357:

  E. B. Bax, The Peasants’ War in Germany, 1524–25, p. 37.

Footnote 358:

  L. and P. XI, 319; printed by Raine, Mem. of Hexham Priory (Surtees
  Soc.), I, p. clvi, n.

Footnote 359:

  L. and P. XI, 434, 470.

Footnote 360:

  L. and P. XI, 543.

Footnote 361:

  The serving-man’s master, i.e. Cromwell.

Footnote 362:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (vii).

Footnote 363:

  L. and P. XII, (1), 481.

Footnote 364:

  L. and P. XI, 841.

Footnote 365:

  L. and P. XII (1), 590.

Footnote 366:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (xii).

Footnote 367:

  Ibid. 972.

Footnote 368:

  See below, chaps. V and VII.

Footnote 369:

  L. and P. XII (1), 70 (viii).

Footnote 370:

  L. and P. XI, 1120.

Footnote 371:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392.

Footnote 372:

  Ibid.

Footnote 373:

  L. and P. VIII, 809.

Footnote 374:

  Ibid. 949.

Footnote 375:

  Ibid. 771.

Footnote 376:

  Furnivall, Ballads from MS (Ballad Soc.), I (2), 317.

Footnote 377:

  Bax, op. cit. 59.

Footnote 378:

  L. and P. VIII, 736.

Footnote 379:

  L. and P. X, 911.

Footnote 380:

  L. and P. XII (1), 841, 3 (ii) and 4. For similar sayings see
  Furnivall, loc. cit. and Early Eng. Text Soc., Thomas of Ercildoune,
  vol. 61, p. 61.

Footnote 381:

  L. and P. XII (1), 534.

Footnote 382:

  L. and P. XIV (1), 186; Merriman, op. cit. I, chap. XI.

Footnote 383:

  L. and P. IX, 846.

Footnote 384:

  L. and P. X, 614.

Footnote 385:

  Ibid. 1207.

Footnote 386:

  Lansd. MS, 762.

Footnote 387:

  E. E. T. Soc. 61, p. lix.

Footnote 388:

  Ibid. 52–61.

Footnote 389:

  See note C at end of chapter.

Footnote 390:

  Cf. The Prophecies of Rymour, Beid and Marleyng, E. E. T. Soc. vol.
  61, App. 2.

Footnote 391:

  See note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 392:

  L. and P. XII (1), 318.

Footnote 393:

  L. and P. XII (2), 1212, 1231.

Footnote 394:

  The Mirror for Magistrates, II, 71. The Legend of Glendour.

Footnote 395:

  Henry IV, pt. 1, Act III, sc. 1.

Footnote 396:

  Wilfrid Holme, The Fall and Evil Success of Rebellion.

Footnote 397:

  Longstaffe, Hist. of Darlington, 98, n.

Footnote 398:

  L. and P. XI, 501; printed in St. P. I, 459.

Footnote 399:

  E. E. T. Soc. vol. 61, App. 2.

Footnote 400:

  L. and P. VI, 1193; M. A. Everett Green, Letters of Royal and
  Illustrious Ladies, II, no. xcvii.

Footnote 401:

  L. and P. X, 702.

Footnote 402:

  Ibid. 929 (ii).

Footnote 403:

  Ibid. 1015 (26).

Footnote 404:

  L. and P. XI, 381 (A).

Footnote 405:

  Wriothesley, Chron. (Camden Soc.), I, 61.

Footnote 406:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1194–95; see below, chap. XIX.

Footnote 407:

  L. and P. XI, 780 (2); printed St. P. I, 463.

Footnote 408:

  Leadam, The Domesday of Inclosures, I, pp. 8, 243.

Footnote 409:

  Ibid. 244.

Footnote 410:

  Ibid. 245, 251, 255.

Footnote 411:

  Froude always alludes to Moigne as Mayne. The name is spelt in many
  different ways.

Footnote 412:

  Wriothesley, Chronicle (Camden Soc.), I, 61; cf. Inderwick, Cal. of
  Inner Temple Records, I, pp. 94, 104, 107–8, 110–14.

Footnote 413:

  Star Chamber Cases, Bundle XXVIII, no. 120. As usual the result of the
  case is unknown.

Footnote 414:

  See note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 415:

  L. and P. XI, preface, pp. xi-xii.

Footnote 416:

  Ibid. p. XV.

Footnote 417:

  Gasquet, op. cit. II, chap. II.

Footnote 418:

  L. and P. XII (1), 481, 380.

Footnote 419:

  Ibid. 481.

Footnote 420:

  i.e. Dr Raynes, Chancellor of the Bishop of Lincoln.

Footnote 421:

  L. and P. XI, 975 (4).

Footnote 422:

  L. and P. XII (1), 481.

Footnote 423:

  L. and P. XI, 975 (4).

Footnote 424:

  Ibid. 854, 828 (1).

Footnote 425:

  See note B at the end of the chapter.

Footnote 426:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380; extracts are printed by Gasquet, Henry VIII
  and the English Mon. II, chap. II.

Footnote 427:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (iii).

Footnote 428:

  Ibid. (1).

Footnote 429:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 430:

  Ibid. 70 (1).

Footnote 431:

  L. and P. XI, 854.

Footnote 432:

  Ibid. 828 (1).

Footnote 433:

  Ibid. 324.

Footnote 434:

  Ibid. 854.

Footnote 435:

  Ibid. 135.

Footnote 436:

  Ibid. 828 (1).

Footnote 437:

  See below, chap. VII.

Footnote 438:

  L. and P. XI, 567.

Footnote 439:

  See above, chap. IV.

Footnote 440:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (xii).

Footnote 441:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (iii).

Footnote 442:

  Ibid. (xii).

Footnote 443:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 444:

  L. and P. XI, 568, 852.

Footnote 445:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 446:

  Ibid. 853.

Footnote 447:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 448:

  Ibid. 828 (xii).

Footnote 449:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 450:

  L. and P. XI, 971.

Footnote 451:

  Ibid. 853.

Footnote 452:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 453:

  See note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 454:

  Robert Aske’s brother-in-law, see above, chap. III.

Footnote 455:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 456:

  L. and P. XI, 853.

Footnote 457:

  Ibid. 534, 568.

Footnote 458:

  Ibid. 568.

Footnote 459:

  L. and P. XI, 534 (St. P. Hen. VIII, vol. 106, p. 250. R. O.)

Footnote 460:

  L. and P. XI, 568.

Footnote 461:

  Ibid. 533.

Footnote 462:

  Ibid. 536.

Footnote 463:

  Ibid. 563.

Footnote 464:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 465:

  Ibid. 532.

Footnote 466:

  Ibid. 531.

Footnote 467:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 468:

  L. and P. XI, 971.

Footnote 469:

  Ibid. 852, 973.

Footnote 470:

  Ibid. 531, 971, cf. 879 (2).

Footnote 471:

  Ibid. 585.

Footnote 472:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 473:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 474:

  L. and P. XI, 967 (xi).

Footnote 475:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 476:

  L. and P. XI, 971.

Footnote 477:

  Ibid. 539.

Footnote 478:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 479:

  L. and P. XI, 536.

Footnote 480:

  Ibid. 828 (2).

Footnote 481:

  Ibid. 975 (2).

Footnote 482:

  Ibid. 828 (2).

Footnote 483:

  L. and P. XII (1), 70 (ix).

Footnote 484:

  Ibid.

Footnote 485:

  L. and P. XII (1), 70 (ix).

Footnote 486:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380, 481.

Footnote 487:

  See above.

Footnote 488:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 489:

  Christopher Hales.

Footnote 490:

  Richard Riche.

Footnote 491:

  L. and P. XII (1), 70 (iii, vii, x, xi); ibid. 380.

Footnote 492:

  L. and P. XI, 852.

Footnote 493:

  Ibid. 620.

Footnote 494:

  Ibid. 852.

Footnote 495:

  Ibid.

Footnote 496:

  L. and P. XI, 969.

Footnote 497:

  L. and P. XII (1), 70 (iii).

Footnote 498:

  L. and P. XI, 620.

Footnote 499:

  Ibid. 828 (2).

Footnote 500:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 501:

  L. and P. XI, 563.

Footnote 502:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full by Cox, op. cit.

Footnote 503:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (v).

Footnote 504:

  Ibid. (vii).

Footnote 505:

  Ibid.(x).

Footnote 506:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (viii).

Footnote 507:

  Ibid. 593.

Footnote 508:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in Eng. Hist. Rev. v, 331.

Footnote 509:

  The third was probably Thomas Portington’s eldest son.

Footnote 510:

  L. and P. XII (1) 6; Eng. Hist. Rev. loc. cit.

Footnote 511:

  L. and P. XI, 853.

Footnote 512:

  Ibid.

Footnote 513:

  Ibid. 828 (i).

Footnote 514:

  Ibid. 828 (2).

Footnote 515:

  See description of Lionel Dymmoke’s tomb, G. Weir, Hist. Sketches of
  Horncastle, 30, and S. Lodge, Scrivelsby, Append. 3.

Footnote 516:

  L. and P. XI, 828, iii (2), 585.

Footnote 517:

  L. and P. XI, 971.

Footnote 518:

  L. and P. XII (1) 6, Eng. Hist. Rev. v, 333.

Footnote 519:

  See note C at end of chapter.

Footnote 520:

  L. and P. XI, 805.

Footnote 521:

  L. and P. XI, 576, 714.

Footnote 522:

  L. and P. XI, 576; printed also in Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 104; L.
  and P. XI, 714.

Footnote 523:

  L. and P. XI, 538.

Footnote 524:

  See note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 525:

  L. and P. XI, 536.

Footnote 526:

  Ibid. 537.

Footnote 527:

  Ibid. 860.

Footnote 528:

  Ibid. 557.

Footnote 529:

  Ibid. 545; see above chap. I.

Footnote 530:

  L. and P. XI, 576.

Footnote 531:

  Ibid. 552.

Footnote 532:

  See note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 533:

  L. and P. XI, 561.

Footnote 534:

  Ibid. 552.

Footnote 535:

  Ibid. 553.

Footnote 536:

  Ibid. 852.

Footnote 537:

  L. and P. XI, 852, 969.

Footnote 538:

  Ibid. 561.

Footnote 539:

  Ibid. 578, 561.

Footnote 540:

  Ibid. 561.

Footnote 541:

  Ibid. 852.

Footnote 542:

  Ibid. 853.

Footnote 543:

  Ibid. 828 (xii).

Footnote 544:

  Ibid. 853.

Footnote 545:

  Ibid.

Footnote 546:

  Ibid. 587 (2).

Footnote 547:

  Ibid. 853.

Footnote 548:

  Ibid. 828 (2).

Footnote 549:

  L. and P. XI, 853.

Footnote 550:

  Ibid. 939.

Footnote 551:

  Ibid. 805.

Footnote 552:

  Ibid. 571.

Footnote 553:

  Ibid. 585.

Footnote 554:

  See note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 555:

  L. and P. XI, 567.

Footnote 556:

  Ibid. 587.

Footnote 557:

  Ibid. 620.

Footnote 558:

  Ibid. 852.

Footnote 559:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 560:

  Ibid. 854; see note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 561:

  L. and P. XI, 852.

Footnote 562:

  Ibid. 969.

Footnote 563:

  Ibid. 852.

Footnote 564:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 565:

  L. and P. XI, 853, 854.

Footnote 566:

  Ibid. 852.

Footnote 567:

  Ibid.

Footnote 568:

  Ibid. 587.

Footnote 569:

  Ibid. 589.

Footnote 570:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (1).

Footnote 571:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 572:

  Ibid.

Footnote 573:

  Ibid. 828 (v).

Footnote 574:

  Ibid. (vii).

Footnote 575:

  Ibid. 828 (2); XII (1), 70 (ii).

Footnote 576:

  L. and P. XI, 971.

Footnote 577:

  Ibid. 828 (v).

Footnote 578:

  Ibid. 780 (2); 828 (5).

Footnote 579:

  L. and P. XI, 971.

Footnote 580:

  Holinshed, Chronicle, III, 800.

Footnote 581:

  Ibid.

Footnote 582:

  L. and P. XI, 536.

Footnote 583:

  Ibid. 537.

Footnote 584:

  Ibid. 562.

Footnote 585:

  Ibid. 612; printed by Merriman, op. cit. II, 33.

Footnote 586:

  L. and P. XI, 715–16.

Footnote 587:

  L. and P. XII (2), 436.

Footnote 588:

  L. and P. XI, 579, 580.

Footnote 589:

  Ibid. 584; printed in part by Froude, op. cit. chap. XIII.

Footnote 590:

  L. and P. XI, 576.

Footnote 591:

  Ibid. 558, 560, 562, 581, 590.

Footnote 592:

  Ibid. 590.

Footnote 593:

  Ibid. 576, 714.

Footnote 594:

  Ibid. 593.

Footnote 595:

  Ibid. 585.

Footnote 596:

  Ibid. 584.

Footnote 597:

  Ibid. 714; printed in “The Pilgrim,” ed. Froude, p. 113.

Footnote 598:

  L. and P. XI, 568.

Footnote 599:

  Ibid. 587.

Footnote 600:

  Ibid. 563.

Footnote 601:

  L. and P. XI, 592.

Footnote 602:

  Ibid. 587 (2).

Footnote 603:

  Ibid. 581, 587.

Footnote 604:

  Ibid. 714.

Footnote 605:

  Ibid. 600.

Footnote 606:

  Ibid. 607.

Footnote 607:

  Probably Monday, 16 Oct.

Footnote 608:

  L. and P. XI, 579 (2).

Footnote 609:

  Ibid. 576.

Footnote 610:

  Ibid. 615.

Footnote 611:

  Ibid. 601.

Footnote 612:

  Ibid.

Footnote 613:

  L. and P. XI, 603.

Footnote 614:

  Ibid. 625.

Footnote 615:

  Ibid. 626.

Footnote 616:

  Ibid.

Footnote 617:

  Ibid. 605.

Footnote 618:

  Ibid. 662.

Footnote 619:

  Ibid. 598.

Footnote 620:

  L. and P. XI, 611.

Footnote 621:

  Ibid. 714.

Footnote 622:

  Ibid. 621.

Footnote 623:

  Ibid. 615.

Footnote 624:

  Ibid. 569.

Footnote 625:

  Ibid. 616.

Footnote 626:

  Ibid. 615.

Footnote 627:

  Ibid. 617.

Footnote 628:

  Ibid. 658.

Footnote 629:

  Ibid. 638.

Footnote 630:

  L. and P. XI, 650.

Footnote 631:

  Ibid. 658; see above, chap. V.

Footnote 632:

  Ibid. 658.

Footnote 633:

  L. and P. XI, 888.

Footnote 634:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 635:

  Ibid. 70 (x).

Footnote 636:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (xi).

Footnote 637:

  L. and P. XII (1), 70 (ii).

Footnote 638:

  See above, chap. V.

Footnote 639:

  L. and P. XII (1), 70 (xi).

Footnote 640:

  L. and P. XI, 853.

Footnote 641:

  L. and P. XII (1), 70 (x).

Footnote 642:

  See note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 643:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (viii), 969.

Footnote 644:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 645:

  See note B at end of chapter.

Footnote 646:

  L. and P. XI, 971.

Footnote 647:

  Ibid. 975 (3).

Footnote 648:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 649:

  Ibid. 939.

Footnote 650:

  Ibid. 971.

Footnote 651:

  Ibid.

Footnote 652:

  L. and P. XI, 969.

Footnote 653:

  Ibid. 828 (V).

Footnote 654:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 655:

  L. and P. XI, 658.

Footnote 656:

  Ibid.

Footnote 657:

  Ibid. 661.

Footnote 658:

  Ibid. 694.

Footnote 659:

  L. and P. XI, 971; XII (1), 380.

Footnote 660:

  Ibid.

Footnote 661:

  L. and P. XI, 694 (2); printed in St. P. I, 462.

Footnote 662:

  L. and P. XI, 854.

Footnote 663:

  Ibid. 690, 718; printed St. P. I, 468.

Footnote 664:

  L. and P. XI, 971.

Footnote 665:

  Ibid. 843.

Footnote 666:

  Ibid. 828, i, (2); XII (1), 70 (xiii).

Footnote 667:

  L. and P. XI, 672.

Footnote 668:

  Ibid. 680.

Footnote 669:

  L. and P. XI, 672.

Footnote 670:

  Ibid. 854, 691.

Footnote 671:

  Ibid. 854 (ii).

Footnote 672:

  Ibid. 828, i, (2).

Footnote 673:

  Ibid. 808.

Footnote 674:

  Ibid. 694.

Footnote 675:

  Ibid. 587.

Footnote 676:

  L. and P. XI, 625.

Footnote 677:

  Ibid. 584.

Footnote 678:

  Ibid. 852.

Footnote 679:

  Ibid. 620.

Footnote 680:

  Ibid. 852.

Footnote 681:

  Lincolnshire Pedigrees (Harl. Soc.), Ped. of Carr of Sleaford.

Footnote 682:

  L. and P. XI, 969.

Footnote 683:

  L. and P. XI, 975 (4).

Footnote 684:

  Ibid. 852.

Footnote 685:

  Ibid. 969.

Footnote 686:

  L. and P. XI, 656; printed by Tierney, Dodd’s Church Hist. of Eng. I,
  Append.

Footnote 687:

  See note C at end of chapter.

Footnote 688:

  See note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 689:

  L. and P. XI, 714; the translation of another copy is printed by
  Froude, The Pilgrim, p. 113.

Footnote 690:

  L. and P. XI, 720–1.

Footnote 691:

  Ibid. 808.

Footnote 692:

  Ibid. 717.

Footnote 693:

  L. and P. XI, 718; printed in St. P. I, 468.

Footnote 694:

  L. and P. XI, 717.

Footnote 695:

  Ibid. 756.

Footnote 696:

  Ibid. 854.

Footnote 697:

  L. and P. XI, 780 (1).

Footnote 698:

  L. and P. XI, 780 (2); printed in St. P. I, 463.

Footnote 699:

  See above, chap. V.

Footnote 700:

  Bax, op. cit. 108.

Footnote 701:

  Bax, op. cit. 137–41.

Footnote 702:

  Ibid. 141–2.

Footnote 703:

  L. and P. XI, 842; printed in St. P. I, 490.

Footnote 704:

  Bax, op. cit. 44, 108.

Footnote 705:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 330 et seq.;
  see chap. IV.

Footnote 706:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1186.

Footnote 707:

  Ibid. 6, printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 331.

Footnote 708:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 333.

Footnote 709:

  See above, chap. V.

Footnote 710:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 711:

  Ibid.

Footnote 712:

  L. and P. XI, 563.

Footnote 713:

  See chap. V.

Footnote 714:

  See chap. V.

Footnote 715:

  L. and P. XI, 760.

Footnote 716:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 717:

  L. and X. XI, 605.

Footnote 718:

  Ibid. 563.

Footnote 719:

  Ibid. 605.

Footnote 720:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1186.

Footnote 721:

  L. and P. XI, 841.

Footnote 722:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, J. C. Coxe, William Stapleton
  and the Pilgrimage of Grace (Trans. of the East Riding Antiq. Soc. X).

Footnote 723:

  See chap. I.

Footnote 724:

  L. and P. XI, 841.

Footnote 725:

  Ibid. 647; append. 10.

Footnote 726:

  L. and P. XII (1), 370; XI, 841.

Footnote 727:

  L. and P. XII (1), 370.

Footnote 728:

  Ibid. 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 729:

  L. and P. XI, 841.

Footnote 730:

  Ibid.

Footnote 731:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 333.

Footnote 732:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, J. C. Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 733:

  See chap. V.

Footnote 734:

  L. and P. XI, 628; printed by Russell, Kett’s Rebellion, 33, n.

Footnote 735:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392.

Footnote 736:

  See above, chap. III.

Footnote 737:

  See above, chap. III.

Footnote 738:

  See map no. 3.

Footnote 739:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, J. C. Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 740:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. v, 334.

Footnote 741:

  L. and P. XI, 622. Copied from original at R. O.

Footnote 742:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. v, 334.

Footnote 743:

  L. and P. XII (1), 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I,
  chap. IX.

Footnote 744:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1186.

Footnote 745:

  L. and P. XI, 841.

Footnote 746:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 747:

  L. and P. XI, 841.

Footnote 748:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 749:

  Ibid. 1186.

Footnote 750:

  Ibid. 1022.

Footnote 751:

  Ibid. 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 752:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1021.

Footnote 753:

  Ibid. 370, 1018.

Footnote 754:

  Ibid. 392.

Footnote 755:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 756:

  See chap. V.

Footnote 757:

  L. and P. XII (1), 201, pp. 89–90.

Footnote 758:

  L. and P. XII (1), 201, p. 90.

Footnote 759:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (xii).

Footnote 760:

  L. and P. XII (1), 201, p. 90.

Footnote 761:

  Ibid. 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 762:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 763:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 764:

  L. and P. XII (1), 201, p. 94.

Footnote 765:

  Ibid. 392.

Footnote 766:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 334.

Footnote 767:

  Ibid. 852 (ii).

Footnote 768:

  Ibid. 6.

Footnote 769:

  Ibid.

Footnote 770:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 771:

  L. and P. XII (1), 201, p. 85.

Footnote 772:

  Ibid. 392.

Footnote 773:

  Ibid. 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 334.

Footnote 774:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392.

Footnote 775:

  Ibid. 901 (28); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. v, 560.

Footnote 776:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392.

Footnote 777:

  L. and P. XI, 828 (xii).

Footnote 778:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 779:

  L. and P. XI, 818.

Footnote 780:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392.

Footnote 781:

  L. and P. XI, 818.

Footnote 782:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 783:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 784:

  L. and P. XI, 1103.

Footnote 785:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 786:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392.

Footnote 787:

  L. and P. XI, 789; copied from the original at the R. O.

Footnote 788:

  L. and P. XI (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 789:

  L. and P. XI, 819 and 820.

Footnote 790:

  L. and P. XI, 658, 672.

Footnote 791:

  Ibid. 627.

Footnote 792:

  Ibid. 1086; see above, chap. VII.

Footnote 793:

  L. and P. XI, 646.

Footnote 794:

  Ibid. 663.

Footnote 795:

  Ibid. 664.

Footnote 796:

  Ibid. 635; see below, chap. IX.

Footnote 797:

  L. and P. XI, 678; see below, chap. IX.

Footnote 798:

  See above, chap. VII.

Footnote 799:

  L. and P. XI, 1402; see note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 800:

  See above, chap. VII.

Footnote 801:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1225.

Footnote 802:

  See above, chap. VI.

Footnote 803:

  L. and P. XI, 692; see note B at end of chapter.

Footnote 804:

  Ibid. 687.

Footnote 805:

  Ibid. 1086.

Footnote 806:

  L. and P. XI, 702.

Footnote 807:

  Ibid. 695.

Footnote 808:

  Ibid. 694; copied from the original at the R. O.

Footnote 809:

  See above, chap. VI.

Footnote 810:

  L. and P. XII (1), 783.

Footnote 811:

  Ibid. 1087 (p. 497); see note C at end of chapter.

Footnote 812:

  L. and P. XI, 706.

Footnote 813:

  Ibid. 715.

Footnote 814:

  Ibid. 723; printed in full, St. P. I, 468.

Footnote 815:

  L. and P. XI, 729; see below, chap. IX.

Footnote 816:

  L. and P. XI, 739.

Footnote 817:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 818:

  L. and P. XI, 749.

Footnote 819:

  L. and P. XII (1), 306.

Footnote 820:

  Ibid. 1018.

Footnote 821:

  L. and P. XI, 729.

Footnote 822:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1018.

Footnote 823:

  L. and P. XI, 729.

Footnote 824:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 331.

Footnote 825:

  L. and P. XI, 705 (3); copied from the original at the R. O., T. R.
  Misc. Bk. 118, p. 41; St. P. I, 466.

Footnote 826:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 334.

Footnote 827:

  Ibid.

Footnote 828:

  L. and P. XII (1), 306.

Footnote 829:

  L. and P. XI, 705; see note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 830:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (21); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 551
  et seq.

Footnote 831:

  L. and P. XII (1), 306.

Footnote 832:

  Ibid. 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 334.

Footnote 833:

  L. and P. XI, 759.

Footnote 834:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1018.

Footnote 835:

  L. and P. XI, 784 (ii); printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd
  Earl of Derby (Chetham Soc.), p. 51.

Footnote 836:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 335.

Footnote 837:

  Wilfred Holme, The Downfall of Rebellion.

Footnote 838:

  L. and P. XI, 1319.

Footnote 839:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1018.

Footnote 840:

  Ibid. 1320.

Footnote 841:

  See note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 842:

  L. and P. XI, 1402.

Footnote 843:

  L. and P. XI, 762.

Footnote 844:

  Ibid. 1402; XII (1), 852 (iii).

Footnote 845:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 335.

Footnote 846:

  L. and P. XII (1), 852 (iii).

Footnote 847:

  L. and P. XI, 762.

Footnote 848:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6 and 901 (28); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  336 and 560.

Footnote 849:

  See below chap. IX.

Footnote 850:

  L. and P. XII (1), 945 (68).

Footnote 851:

  L. and P. XI, 705 (4); printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl
  of Derby (Chetham Soc.), p. 50; Tierney, Dodd’s Church Hist. of Eng.
  I, Append. no. XLIII; Stowe, Chron. ann. 1536; Speed, Hist. of Gt
  Britain, Bk IX, chap. XXI.

Footnote 852:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1021, 1034.

Footnote 853:

  L. and P. XII (1), 945 (65).

Footnote 854:

  Ibid. 6, 945 (67).

Footnote 855:

  See below chap. IX.

Footnote 856:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1018.

Footnote 857:

  Ibid. 1264.

Footnote 858:

  L. and P. XI, 1372.

Footnote 859:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1018.

Footnote 860:

  Ibid. 1264.

Footnote 861:

  Ibid. 1018.

Footnote 862:

  L. and P. XI, 774.

Footnote 863:

  Ibid. 1402.

Footnote 864:

  See note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 865:

  L. and P. XI, 760.

Footnote 866:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 867:

  L. and P. XI, 1086.

Footnote 868:

  Ibid. 774.

Footnote 869:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 870:

  L. and P. XI, 759.

Footnote 871:

  L. and P. XII (1), 852 (iii); L. and P. XI, 1402.

Footnote 872:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 873:

  L. and P. XI, Append. 11.

Footnote 874:

  See note F at end of chapter.

Footnote 875:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 335–6.

Footnote 876:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 877:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6, 1022.

Footnote 878:

  L. and P. XI, 1086.

Footnote 879:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 880:

  L. and P. XII (1), 853.

Footnote 881:

  L. and P. XI, 1086.

Footnote 882:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 883:

  Ibid. 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 336.

Footnote 884:

  See below chap. IX.

Footnote 885:

  Bates, Border Holds, Introduction, pt V; Arch. Ael. (new ser.) I, 87;
  Gasquet, op. cit. II, chap. X.

Footnote 886:

  See below chap. XIV.

Footnote 887:

  See below chap. XX.

Footnote 888:

  Dowell, op. cit. I, Bk III, chap, I, pt II, section 2.

Footnote 889:

  Raine, Mem. of Hexham Priory (Surtees Soc.) preface p. cxxii.

Footnote 890:

  Ibid. Append. p. cxxvi; Wright, Suppression of the Monasteries (Camden
  Soc.), 123; Burnet, Hist. of Reformation, VI, 139; L. and P. X, 716.

Footnote 891:

  L. and P. XI, 689.

Footnote 892:

  Ibid. 449.

Footnote 893:

  L. and P. XI, 689.

Footnote 894:

  Ibid. 504; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. I, p. cxxvii.

Footnote 895:

  L. and P. XI, 689.

Footnote 896:

  Ibid. 535.

Footnote 897:

  L. and P. XI, 544, 760 (2).

Footnote 898:

  See below.

Footnote 899:

  Ibid. 689.

Footnote 900:

  Bates, Border Holds, 316.

Footnote 901:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1090; printed in full in Raine, op. cit. I, Append.
  p. cxl et seq.

Footnote 902:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1090; printed in full, Raine, loc. cit.

Footnote 903:

  Ibid.; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. p. cxxxvi.

Footnote 904:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1090; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. p. cxlv.

Footnote 905:

  Ibid.; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. p. cxxxvi.

Footnote 906:

  L. and P. XI, 68.

Footnote 907:

  Ibid. 736.

Footnote 908:

  Ibid.

Footnote 909:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1090; Raine, op. cit. p. cxxxvi. Also printed by De
  Fonblanque, Annals of the House of Percy I, App. lii.

Footnote 910:

  L. and P. XII (1), 351, 467; printed by De Fonblanque, op. cit. I,
  App. liv.

Footnote 911:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1090; Raine and De Fonblanque, loc. cit.

Footnote 912:

  L. and P. VIII, 1143 (1).

Footnote 913:

  L. and P. XIII (1), 1253.

Footnote 914:

  L. and P. XII (1), 85, 219.

Footnote 915:

  Ibid. 1090; printed in full, Raine, loc. cit.

Footnote 916:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 917:

  L. and P. XI, 677.

Footnote 918:

  Ibid. 729.

Footnote 919:

  L. and P. XII (1), 788.

Footnote 920:

  Ibid. 789.

Footnote 921:

  Ibid. 775.

Footnote 922:

  Ibid. 789.

Footnote 923:

  Ibid. 1035. The Abbot says “the Wednesday after Michaelmas,” i.e. 4
  October, but he seems to have made a week’s error in his reckoning.

Footnote 924:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1035.

Footnote 925:

  Ibid. 369, 789.

Footnote 926:

  Ibid. 786 (11).

Footnote 927:

  L. and P. XI, 1284.

Footnote 928:

  L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full by Milner and Benham, Records
  of the House of Lumley, 32–45.

Footnote 929:

  L. and P. XII (1), 22.

Footnote 930:

  L. and P. XI, Append. 14.

Footnote 931:

  L. and P. XI, 381 (B).

Footnote 932:

  Ibid. Append. 14.

Footnote 933:

  Ibid. 1271.

Footnote 934:

  L. and P. XII (1), 22.

Footnote 935:

  Ibid. 789.

Footnote 936:

  Ibid. 29.

Footnote 937:

  Ibid. 369; XI, 945.

Footnote 938:

  D.N.B.

Footnote 939:

  L. and P. XII (1), 369; see note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 940:

  Ibid. 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. 43.

Footnote 941:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1035.

Footnote 942:

  L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit.
  33, 43.

Footnote 943:

  Fowler, Dur. Acct. Rolls (Surtees Soc.), II, 483.

Footnote 944:

  L. and P. XII (2), 536; Greenwell, Boldon Buke (Surtees Soc.),
  vii-viii; Lapsley, Co. Pal. of Durham, App. iii, 327.

Footnote 945:

  L. and P. XII (1), 578.

Footnote 946:

  Ibid. 789.

Footnote 947:

  Ibid. 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. 34, 35.

Footnote 948:

  Leadam, Select Cases from the Court of Star Chamber (Selden Soc.),
  pref. p. xcv; p. 75 et seq.

Footnote 949:

  L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit.
  43.

Footnote 950:

  Ibid. 788.

Footnote 951:

  L. and P. XI, 1207, 1372.

Footnote 952:

  L. and P. XII (1), 259.

Footnote 953:

  L. and P. XI, 1372.

Footnote 954:

  Dep. and Eccles. Pro. at York Castle (Surtees Soc.), 45.

Footnote 955:

  See above, chap. IV.

Footnote 956:

  L. and P. XI, 841.

Footnote 957:

  Ibid. 563, 742.

Footnote 958:

  See above.

Footnote 959:

  L. and P. XI, 604.

Footnote 960:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1186.

Footnote 961:

  See above.

Footnote 962:

  L. and P. XI, 712.

Footnote 963:

  Ibid.

Footnote 964:

  Ibid. 927.

Footnote 965:

  Ibid. 760.

Footnote 966:

  Ibid. 759.

Footnote 967:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1269.

Footnote 968:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1269.

Footnote 969:

  Ibid. 698 (3).

Footnote 970:

  Sharp, Mem. of the Reb. of 1569, pp. 275, 277.

Footnote 971:

  See above, chap. III.

Footnote 972:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1186.

Footnote 973:

  L. and P. XI, 892; Hist. MSS. Com. Report VI, 446; Correspondence of
  the 3rd Earl of Derby (Chetham Soc.), 47 et seq.

Footnote 974:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1034.

Footnote 975:

  Ibid. 1014; printed in Yorks. Arch. Journ. XI, 251.

Footnote 976:

  Yorks. Arch. Journ. XI, 261–2.

Footnote 977:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1034.

Footnote 978:

  See above.

Footnote 979:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1186; printed in part by Froude, op. cit. chap.
  XIII.

Footnote 980:

  L. and P. XII (1), 698 (3).

Footnote 981:

  L. and P. XI, 927.

Footnote 982:

  L. and P. XII (1), 787, 789.

Footnote 983:

  See below, chap. X.

Footnote 984:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 331 et seq.

Footnote 985:

  See below, chap. XI.

Footnote 986:

  Eure, Ewer, Ewers, Evers, Ewry, Ivers, Yevars, and many other forms.

Footnote 987:

  Hamilton Papers (Scot. Rec. Soc.), II, 565.

Footnote 988:

  Sir Walter Scott, The Eve of St John.

Footnote 989:

  L. and P. XII (1), 535.

Footnote 990:

  L. and P. XI, 760 (2).

Footnote 991:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 992:

  L. and P. XII (2), 1212 (vi).

Footnote 993:

  Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Reign of Henry VIII (ed. 1672), 478.

Footnote 994:

  L. and P. XI, 989.

Footnote 995:

  L. and P. XIII (1), 45.

Footnote 996:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 331 et seq.

Footnote 997:

  See above, chap. IV.

Footnote 998:

  Also spelt Salley.

Footnote 999:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6.

Footnote 1000:

  L. and P. XI, 784.

Footnote 1001:

  Ibid. 786 (3); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 331; J. Horsfall
  Turner, Yorkshire Anthology, 143; The Antiquary, November 1880.

Footnote 1002:

  L. and P. XI, 786 (2); cf. 1421.

Footnote 1003:

  Gasquet, Hen. VIII and the Eng. Mon. I, chap, III; L. and P. IV (1),
  1253.

Footnote 1004:

  L. and P. XII (1), 849 (29).

Footnote 1005:

  L. and P. XI, 635.

Footnote 1006:

  See note B at end of chapter; cf. L. and P. XI, 486.

Footnote 1007:

  L. and P. XI, 681, 787, 1019, 1212; Gasquet, op. cit. II, chap. II.

Footnote 1008:

  L. and P. XI, 859.

Footnote 1009:

  Ibid. 635.

Footnote 1010:

  L. and P. XII (1), 578.

Footnote 1011:

  Ibid. 518; printed in Yorks. Arch. Journ. XI, 261–2; see note D at end
  of chapter.

Footnote 1012:

  L. and P. XII (1), 853.

Footnote 1013:

  L. and P. XI, 634; printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of
  Derby (Chetham Soc.), 18.

Footnote 1014:

  L. and P. XI, 783; printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of
  Derby, 28.

Footnote 1015:

  L. and P. XI, 807.

Footnote 1016:

  L. and P. XI, 807.

Footnote 1017:

  Ibid. 804.

Footnote 1018:

  Ibid. 1155 (1), 1251; printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl
  of Derby (Chetham Soc.), 67.

Footnote 1019:

  L. and P. XII (1), 914.

Footnote 1020:

  L. and P. XI, 783.

Footnote 1021:

  Ibid. 894.

Footnote 1022:

  See above.

Footnote 1023:

  L. and P. XI, 947 (2); printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl
  of Derby, 38.

Footnote 1024:

  L. and P. XII (1), 652.

Footnote 1025:

  See above, chap. V, note B.

Footnote 1026:

  L. and P. XII (1), 841 (3).

Footnote 1027:

  L. and P. XI, 947 (2).

Footnote 1028:

  L. and P. XII (1), 698 (3).

Footnote 1029:

  Ibid. 914.

Footnote 1030:

  L. and P. XI, 947 (2); printed in full, Correspondence, 38.

Footnote 1031:

  L. and P. XII (1), 914.

Footnote 1032:

  Yorks. Arch. Journ. XI, 253 and L. and P. XII (1), 1034.

Footnote 1033:

  Yorks. Arch. Journ. XI, 256.

Footnote 1034:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1034.

Footnote 1035:

  L. and P. XI, 947 (2).

Footnote 1036:

  L. and P. XII (1), 914.

Footnote 1037:

  L. and P. XI, 947.

Footnote 1038:

  L. and P. XI, 900, 901, 922; nos. 901 and 922 are printed in full in
  Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of Derby, 36 and 37.

Footnote 1039:

  L. and P. XI, 947.

Footnote 1040:

  Yorks. Arch. Journ. XI, 256.

Footnote 1041:

  See note C at end of chapter.

Footnote 1042:

  L. and P. XI, 319; printed in full, Raine, Priory of Hexham, I Append,
  p. clvi n.

Footnote 1043:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (2); printed in full, Wilson, The Monasteries
  of Cumberland and Westmorland, no. XXII.

Footnote 1044:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (1); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. XXI.

Footnote 1045:

  See above.

Footnote 1046:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (2); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no.
  XXII.

Footnote 1047:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1048:

  V. C. H. Cumberland, II, 48.

Footnote 1049:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1259; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. nos.
  XXIV-XXVII and Raine, op. cit. I, p. cliv.

Footnote 1050:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (1).

Footnote 1051:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (2).

Footnote 1052:

  L. and P. XI, 742; see above.

Footnote 1053:

  Ibid. 927.

Footnote 1054:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (1), (2); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit.
  nos. XXI and XXII.

Footnote 1055:

  L. and P. XI, 927.

Footnote 1056:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (1), (2).

Footnote 1057:

  Ibid. 1090; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. I, Append, p. cxxx et
  seq.; De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, Append. LII.

Footnote 1058:

  L. and P. XI, 647, 846.

Footnote 1059:

  Ibid. 1331.

Footnote 1060:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1061:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (1).

Footnote 1062:

  L. and P. XI, 993; XII (1), 687 (1); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit.
  no. XXI.

Footnote 1063:

  L. and P. XI, 1096, 1331.

Footnote 1064:

  L. and P. XI, 1080; XII (1), 687 (2).

Footnote 1065:

  Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte, V, 343, quoted by Bax, op. cit. 109.

Footnote 1066:

  Bax, op. cit. 61.

Footnote 1067:

  Ibid. 88.

Footnote 1068:

  L. and P. IX, 183; XII (2) 597.

Footnote 1069:

  Nicholson and Burn, Westmorland and Cumberland, I, 11–12.

Footnote 1070:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 343.

Footnote 1071:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1072:

  Ibid. 901 (41); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 568. See above,
  chap. III.

Footnote 1073:

  L. and P. XI, 807.

Footnote 1074:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (1), (28); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  560. See above, chap. IX.

Footnote 1075:

  See note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 1076:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 336.

Footnote 1077:

  L. and P. XI, 826 (2).

Footnote 1078:

  See notes B and C at end of chapter.

Footnote 1079:

  L. and P. XII (1), 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I,
  chap. IX; L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1080:

  L. and P. XII (1), 393.

Footnote 1081:

  L. and P. XI, 792.

Footnote 1082:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1018.

Footnote 1083:

  Ibid. 1090; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit., I, App. LII.

Footnote 1084:

  L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Bentham, Records
  of the House of Lumley, chap. V.

Footnote 1085:

  L. and P. XII (1), 393, printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I,
  chap. IX.

Footnote 1086:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1019.

Footnote 1087:

  L. and P. XII (1), 369; Milner and Bentham, op. cit. chap. V.

Footnote 1088:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (41); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 568.

Footnote 1089:

  L. and P. XII (1), 852 (iv).

Footnote 1090:

  L. and P. XI, 879.

Footnote 1091:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175.

Footnote 1092:

  See above, chap. VI.

Footnote 1093:

  L. and P. XI, 879.

Footnote 1094:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1095:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1320.

Footnote 1096:

  Ibid. 392.

Footnote 1097:

  L. and P. XII (1), 784. See above, chap. V, for the message from
  Halifax to Lincoln.

Footnote 1098:

  See above, chap. IV.

Footnote 1099:

  L. and P. XII (2), 369 (4).

Footnote 1100:

  Star Chamber Cases, vol. XX, fol. 9.

Footnote 1101:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6, printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. vol. V, p. 340.

Footnote 1102:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1103:

  L. and P. XII (1), 698 (3).

Footnote 1104:

  Ibid. 946 (118).

Footnote 1105:

  Fowler, Rites and Monuments of Durham (Surtees Soc.), 26.

Footnote 1106:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (73); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 571.

Footnote 1107:

  Hall, Chronicle, ann. 1536; see note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 1108:

  L. and P. XII (1), 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I,
  chap. IX.

Footnote 1109:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392.

Footnote 1110:

  Ibid., see below, chap. XIII.

Footnote 1111:

  L. and P. XII (1), 946 (118).

Footnote 1112:

  L. and P. XII (1), 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. chap.
  IX.

Footnote 1113:

  L. and P. XII (1), 900 (73–87); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  554–5. See above, chap, II, and note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 1114:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (73).

Footnote 1115:

  Ibid. 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1116:

  L. and P. XI, 826 (2), (4).

Footnote 1117:

  Spanish Chron. of King Henry VIII (ed. M. A. S. Hume), chap. XVII.

Footnote 1118:

  See above, chap. V.

Footnote 1119:

  L. and P. XI, 625.

Footnote 1120:

  Ibid. 626.

Footnote 1121:

  Ibid. 642.

Footnote 1122:

  L. & P. XI, 671.

Footnote 1123:

  Ibid. 659.

Footnote 1124:

  Ibid. 671.

Footnote 1125:

  Ibid. 642.

Footnote 1126:

  See above, ch. VI.

Footnote 1127:

  L. and P. XI, 670, 720, 721.

Footnote 1128:

  Ibid. 642.

Footnote 1129:

  Ibid. 659.

Footnote 1130:

  Ibid. 726.

Footnote 1131:

  Ibid. 715, 717.

Footnote 1132:

  See above, ch. VI.

Footnote 1133:

  L. and P. XI. 726.

Footnote 1134:

  Ibid. 716.

Footnote 1135:

  Ibid. 723; see above, ch. VIII.

Footnote 1136:

  L. and P. XI, 726.

Footnote 1137:

  Ibid. 716.

Footnote 1138:

  Ibid. 749.

Footnote 1139:

  Ibid. 704.

Footnote 1140:

  Ibid. 768.

Footnote 1141:

  See above, chap. IV.

Footnote 1142:

  L. and P. XI, 768.

Footnote 1143:

  Ibid. 834.

Footnote 1144:

  See above, ch. VII.

Footnote 1145:

  L. and P. XI, 879.

Footnote 1146:

  Ibid. 738.

Footnote 1147:

  L. and P. XI 727; printed in full, E. Bapst, Deux Gentilshommes-poètes
  de la Cour de Henri VIII, 220 n.

Footnote 1148:

  L. and P. XI, 738.

Footnote 1149:

  Ibid. 800.

Footnote 1150:

  See above, chap. VI.

Footnote 1151:

  L. and P. XI, 694.

Footnote 1152:

  Ibid. 758.

Footnote 1153:

  Ibid. 772.

Footnote 1154:

  Ibid. 758.

Footnote 1155:

  L. and P. XI, 772.

Footnote 1156:

  Ibid. 774; see above, chap. VIII.

Footnote 1157:

  L. and P. XI, 776.

Footnote 1158:

  L. and P. XI, 793.

Footnote 1159:

  Ibid. 803.

Footnote 1160:

  Ibid. 800, 803.

Footnote 1161:

  Ibid. 800.

Footnote 1162:

  Ibid. 803.

Footnote 1163:

  L. and P. XI, 799, 823, 824, 825, 835 etc.

Footnote 1164:

  Ibid. 831; copied from the original at the R. O.

Footnote 1165:

  L. and P. XI, 771.

Footnote 1166:

  Ibid. 826; see above, ch. X.

Footnote 1167:

  L. and P. XI, 840.

Footnote 1168:

  Ibid. 816, 822; printed in full, St. P. I, 488.

Footnote 1169:

  L. and P. XI, 816.

Footnote 1170:

  L. and P. XI, 845.

Footnote 1171:

  See above, ch. IX.

Footnote 1172:

  L. and P. XI, 846; see note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 1173:

  L. and P. XII (1), 854.

Footnote 1174:

  L. and P. XI, 846, 909.

Footnote 1175:

  L. and P. XII (1), 854.

Footnote 1176:

  Ibid. 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, chap. IX.

Footnote 1177:

  L. and P. XII (1), 29.

Footnote 1178:

  Ibid. 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, chap. IX.

Footnote 1179:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175.

Footnote 1180:

  Ibid. 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 337.

Footnote 1181:

  L. and P. XII (1), 393.

Footnote 1182:

  Ibid. 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1183:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1184:

  Duff, Eng. Provincial Printers to 1557, Lecture II, York.

Footnote 1185:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6, 392, 1175.

Footnote 1186:

  L. and P. XI, 846; XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  337.

Footnote 1187:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 337.

Footnote 1188:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1189:

  Ibid. 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. chap. V.

Footnote 1190:

  L. and P. XII (1), 946 (117).

Footnote 1191:

  Ibid. 1022.

Footnote 1192:

  Ibid. 29, (2), (3).

Footnote 1193:

  L. and P. XII (1), 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I,
  chap. IX.

Footnote 1194:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1195:

  L. and P. XII (1), 393.

Footnote 1196:

  Ibid. 392.

Footnote 1197:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (73); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  571–2.

Footnote 1198:

  L. and P. XII (1), 29, 393, 946 (118), 1175 (ii) (3).

Footnote 1199:

  Ibid. 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V. 337.

Footnote 1200:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392, 1175 (ii) (3).

Footnote 1201:

  L. and P. XI, 887; printed in full, State Papers, I, 495.

Footnote 1202:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175 (ii) (4).

Footnote 1203:

  L. and P. XI, 909; 1319; extracts printed in Froude, op. cit. chap.
  XIII.

Footnote 1204:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175 (ii) (4).

Footnote 1205:

  L. and P. XI, 1319; XII (1), 6, 29, 1175 (ii) (5).

Footnote 1206:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6.

Footnote 1207:

  L. and P. XI, 1241.

Footnote 1208:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175 (ii) (4).

Footnote 1209:

  Ibid. 6.

Footnote 1210:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175 (ii) (4).

Footnote 1211:

  Ibid. 900 (72); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 554.

Footnote 1212:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (21); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 559.

Footnote 1213:

  L. and P. XII (1), 916 (2), (118).

Footnote 1214:

  Ibid. 1175 (ii) (4).

Footnote 1215:

  Ibid. 946 (2), (118).

Footnote 1216:

  L. and P. XI, 864; copied from the original at the R. O.

Footnote 1217:

  Ibid. 884; printed in full, State Papers, I, 493; L. and P. XI, 909.

Footnote 1218:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175 (ii) (4).

Footnote 1219:

  Ibid. 201 (p. 90).

Footnote 1220:

  L. and P. XI, 909.

Footnote 1221:

  L. and P. XII (1), 29, (2), (3).

Footnote 1222:

  Ibid. loc. cit.; 900 (74), (87); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  554, 555.

Footnote 1223:

  L. and P. XI, 786; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 344.

Footnote 1224:

  L. and P. XI, 1402.

Footnote 1225:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; 1175 (ii) (3), (4).

Footnote 1226:

  Ibid. 29.

Footnote 1227:

  Ibid. 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 336–7.

Footnote 1228:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175 (ii) (4).

Footnote 1229:

  L. and P. XII, 1022.

Footnote 1230:

  L. and P. XI, 902; printed in full, State Papers, I, 496.

Footnote 1231:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1232:

  Thomas, The Pilgrim (ed. Froude).

Footnote 1233:

  L. and P. XII (1), 900 (93); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 555.

Footnote 1234:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 337.

Footnote 1235:

  L. and P. XI, 1300.

Footnote 1236:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6.

Footnote 1237:

  Ibid. 1315.

Footnote 1238:

  Ibid. 456.

Footnote 1239:

  L. and P. XI, 1319; extracts printed in Froude, op. cit. chap. XIII.

Footnote 1240:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1241:

  Ibid. 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 338.

Footnote 1242:

  L. and P. XI, 1086.

Footnote 1243:

  clee, _claw_ or _hand_.

Footnote 1244:

  L. and P. XI, 1086.

Footnote 1245:

  L. and P. XII (1), 778.

Footnote 1246:

  Herbert, op. cit. 628.

Footnote 1247:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1162.

Footnote 1248:

  Ibid. 1192.

Footnote 1249:

  Herbert, loc. cit.

Footnote 1250:

  L. and P. XI, 1086.

Footnote 1251:

  L. and P. XII (1), 424.

Footnote 1252:

  E. Bapst, op. cit.; see note B at end of chapter.

Footnote 1253:

  Herbert, op. cit. 492.

Footnote 1254:

  See below, chap. XX.

Footnote 1255:

  L. and P. XII (1), 946 (118).

Footnote 1256:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 338.

Footnote 1257:

  He was an usher of the King’s Privy Chamber.

Footnote 1258:

  L. and P. XI, 909; copied from the original at the R. O.

Footnote 1259:

  L. and P. XI, 928, 1045.

Footnote 1260:

  L. and P. XI, 899; see above, chap. IX.

Footnote 1261:

  L. and P. XI, 900, 901; 901 printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd
  Earl of Derby (Chetham Soc.), 36.

Footnote 1262:

  L. and P. XI, 928; XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  338.

Footnote 1263:

  L. and P. XI, 902; printed in full, St. P. I, 496.

Footnote 1264:

  L. and P. XI, 910, printed in full, St. P. I, 497; XII (1), 6, printed
  in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 338.

Footnote 1265:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392.

Footnote 1266:

  Arch. Ael. (N. S.) XVI, 351 et seq.

Footnote 1267:

  Bapst, op. cit. p. 227 n.

Footnote 1268:

  L. and P. XI, 944.

Footnote 1269:

  Ibid. 885, 886, 906.

Footnote 1270:

  Ibid. 955.

Footnote 1271:

  L. and P. XI, 956.

Footnote 1272:

  Latimer’s Remains (Parker Soc.), p. 29. The sermon is misdated 1535.

Footnote 1273:

  L. and P. XI, 909.

Footnote 1274:

  Ibid. 914.

Footnote 1275:

  Ibid. 1009.

Footnote 1276:

  Ibid. 921.

Footnote 1277:

  Ibid. 1009.

Footnote 1278:

  Ibid. 979.

Footnote 1279:

  L. and P. XI, 957, 995.

Footnote 1280:

  L. and P. XI, 957; printed in full, State Papers, I, 506.

Footnote 1281:

  L. and P. XI, 985.

Footnote 1282:

  Ibid. 986.

Footnote 1283:

  Ibid. 995, see below.

Footnote 1284:

  L. and P. XI, 1009.

Footnote 1285:

  L. and P. XII (1), 536, 1163; see above, chap. VIII.

Footnote 1286:

  L. and P. XI, 1009.

Footnote 1287:

  L. and P. XI, 1002, 1003, 1005, 1032, 1037.

Footnote 1288:

  Ibid. 1027, 1077, 1120.

Footnote 1289:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1021 (3).

Footnote 1290:

  Ibid. 1019, 1207 (8).

Footnote 1291:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1021 (5); printed in full, Longstaff, A Leaf from
  the Pilgrimage of Grace; see note F at end of chapter.

Footnote 1292:

  L. and P. XI, 1049, 3 (3), (6), (7); 1058 (4).

Footnote 1293:

  L. and P. XI, 909.

Footnote 1294:

  Ibid. 990, 1075, 1077.

Footnote 1295:

  Ibid. 966.

Footnote 1296:

  Ibid. 960.

Footnote 1297:

  See below.

Footnote 1298:

  L. and P. XI, 992, 1010, 1022, 103; printed in full, Correspondence of
  the third Earl of Derby (Chetham Soc.), pp. 53, 55, 56.

Footnote 1299:

  See above and L. and P. XI, 902.

Footnote 1300:

  See above, chap. IX.

Footnote 1301:

  L. and P. XII (1), 841 (2), (3).

Footnote 1302:

  Ibid. 789 (i).

Footnote 1303:

  L. and P. XI, 924, 1048.

Footnote 1304:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 338.

Footnote 1305:

  L. and P. XII (1), 698.

Footnote 1306:

  L. and P. XII, 392; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, chap.
  IX; and Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1307:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1090; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. I, App. p.
  cxxxvii; see note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 1308:

  See above, chap. IX.

Footnote 1309:

  Raine, op. cit. I, App. p. cxxxiv n.

Footnote 1310:

  L. and P. XI, 1048.

Footnote 1311:

  Ibid. 1039.

Footnote 1312:

  L. and P. XII (1), 849 (53); printed in full, De Fonblanque, I, App.
  no. liii.

Footnote 1313:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1062.

Footnote 1314:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 338–9.

Footnote 1315:

  L. and P. XI, 966, 990, 998.

Footnote 1316:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 339.

Footnote 1317:

  L. and P. XI, 990; XII (1), 6.

Footnote 1318:

  L. and P. XI, 998; XII (1), 6.

Footnote 1319:

  L. and P. XI, 1070.

Footnote 1320:

  L. and P. XII (1), 698 (2).

Footnote 1321:

  Ibid cf. XI, 997.

Footnote 1322:

  L. and P. XI, 1169.

Footnote 1323:

  L. and P. XII(1), 698(2).

Footnote 1324:

  See below, chap. XVII.

Footnote 1325:

  L. and P. XI, 1039.

Footnote 1326:

  Ibid. 1069.

Footnote 1327:

  L. and P. XII (1), 853.

Footnote 1328:

  L. and P. XI, 1195.

Footnote 1329:

  Holme, The Downfall of Rebellion.

Footnote 1330:

  Speed, Hist. of Great Britain, Book IX, chap. 21.

Footnote 1331:

  Froude, op. cit. II, chap. IX.

Footnote 1332:

  L. and P. XI, 1017.

Footnote 1333:

  Ibid. 1059.

Footnote 1334:

  Ibid. 960, cf. 1139.

Footnote 1335:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 339.

Footnote 1336:

  L. and P. XI, 996.

Footnote 1337:

  See above, chap. VII.

Footnote 1338:

  L. and P. XII (1), 481.

Footnote 1339:

  L. and P. XI, 1004.

Footnote 1340:

  Ibid. 1075.

Footnote 1341:

  Ibid. 1095.

Footnote 1342:

  Ibid. 1075.

Footnote 1343:

  Ibid. 1103.

Footnote 1344:

  Ibid. 1104–5.

Footnote 1345:

  Ibid. 1120; see above, chap. VI.

Footnote 1346:

  L. and P. XI, 1120.

Footnote 1347:

  Ibid. 1009.

Footnote 1348:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1013.

Footnote 1349:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 339.

Footnote 1350:

  L. and P. XI, 1039.

Footnote 1351:

  Ibid. 995.

Footnote 1352:

  Ibid. 1007.

Footnote 1353:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1013.

Footnote 1354:

  L. and P. XI, 1046 (3); cf. L. and P. XII (1), 392 (p. 193).

Footnote 1355:

  L. and P. XI, 1046 (1).

Footnote 1356:

  L. and P. XI, 1045.

Footnote 1357:

  See note B at end of chapter.

Footnote 1358:

  L. and P. XII (1) 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 339.

Footnote 1359:

  L. and P. XI, 1017.

Footnote 1360:

  Ibid. 1016.

Footnote 1361:

  Ibid. 1026.

Footnote 1362:

  L. and P. XI, 1027.

Footnote 1363:

  Ibid. 1028.

Footnote 1364:

  Ibid. 1029.

Footnote 1365:

  Ibid. 1063.

Footnote 1366:

  Ibid. 1022, 1031; printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of
  Derby (Chetham Soc.), p. 56.

Footnote 1367:

  L. and P. XI, 1037, 1038.

Footnote 1368:

  Ibid. 1042. The letter is endorsed in Darcy’s hand. See note C at end
  of chapter.

Footnote 1369:

  See above.

Footnote 1370:

  L. and P. XI, 1040.

Footnote 1371:

  Ibid. 1042.

Footnote 1372:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1186.

Footnote 1373:

  L. and P. XI, 1006, 1035, 1036.

Footnote 1374:

  Ibid. 1066, and see above.

Footnote 1375:

  L. and P. XI, 1087, 1094.

Footnote 1376:

  Ibid. 1048.

Footnote 1377:

  Ibid. 1056.

Footnote 1378:

  Ibid. 1059.

Footnote 1379:

  L. and P. XII (1), 853.

Footnote 1380:

  L. and P. XI, 1044, 1050, 1056.

Footnote 1381:

  Ibid. 1059.

Footnote 1382:

  Ibid. 1049.

Footnote 1383:

  Ibid. 960, 1051.

Footnote 1384:

  Ibid. 1117.

Footnote 1385:

  Ibid. 1049.

Footnote 1386:

  Ibid. 1050.

Footnote 1387:

  L. and P. XI, 1049.

Footnote 1388:

  Ibid. 1058, 1068.

Footnote 1389:

  Ibid. 1067.

Footnote 1390:

  Ibid. 1059.

Footnote 1391:

  Ibid. 1067.

Footnote 1392:

  Ibid. 1078.

Footnote 1393:

  Ibid. 1088.

Footnote 1394:

  Ibid. 1060, 1092; printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of
  Derby (Chetham Soc.), pp. 59, 61.

Footnote 1395:

  L. and P. XI, 1097, cf. 1178; printed in full, loc. cit. p. 65.

Footnote 1396:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1090; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. I, pp.
  cxxxi-cxxxiv; De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, App. no. lii.

Footnote 1397:

  L. and P. XI, 1331.

Footnote 1398:

  Ibid. 1080.

Footnote 1399:

  Ibid. 1095.

Footnote 1400:

  Ibid. 1075, 1078, 1095.

Footnote 1401:

  Ibid. 1077.

Footnote 1402:

  See note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 1403:

  L. and P. XI, 1059.

Footnote 1404:

  Ibid. 1005.

Footnote 1405:

  See note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 1406:

  See note F at end of chapter.

Footnote 1407:

  L. and P. XI, 1059.

Footnote 1408:

  Ibid. 1230; printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of Derby
  (Chetham Soc.), p. 70.

Footnote 1409:

  Hamilton Papers, I, no. 242.

Footnote 1410:

  Wilfred Holme, The Downfall of Rebellion.

Footnote 1411:

  Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIV.

Footnote 1412:

  Wilfred Holme, op. cit.

Footnote 1413:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1346, 1370.

Footnote 1414:

  L. and P. XI, 1061.

Footnote 1415:

  Ibid. 1088, cf. 1168.

Footnote 1416:

  Ibid. 1096.

Footnote 1417:

  Ibid. 1103.

Footnote 1418:

  Ibid. 1107.

Footnote 1419:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (42–3); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  569.

Footnote 1420:

  L. and P. XI, 1064 (2).

Footnote 1421:

  Ibid. 1065.

Footnote 1422:

  Ibid. 1107, cf. XII (1), 901 (44), printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  570.

Footnote 1423:

  L. and P. XI, 1115, 1116.

Footnote 1424:

  Ibid. 1077.

Footnote 1425:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (43); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 569.

Footnote 1426:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1186.

Footnote 1427:

  Ibid. 1081; ibid. (2), 268; see above, chap. II.

Footnote 1428:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1080; cf. ibid. XII (2), 292 (III).

Footnote 1429:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1080.

Footnote 1430:

  L. and P. XI, 1115.

Footnote 1431:

  Ibid. 1114.

Footnote 1432:

  Ibid. 1113.

Footnote 1433:

  Ibid. 1112.

Footnote 1434:

  Ibid. 1122, 1123, 1141.

Footnote 1435:

  See above.

Footnote 1436:

  L. and P. XI, 1139.

Footnote 1437:

  Ibid. 1120.

Footnote 1438:

  M. A. Everett Green, op. cit. III, no. lxxi.

Footnote 1439:

  L. and P. XI, 1126.

Footnote 1440:

  Ibid. 1121.

Footnote 1441:

  Ibid. 1126.

Footnote 1442:

  L. and P. XI, 1116.

Footnote 1443:

  Ibid. 1115.

Footnote 1444:

  Ibid. 1135; Yorks. Arch. Jour. XI, 260; L. and P. XI, 1127; XII (1),
  392, 698 (3).

Footnote 1445:

  Ibid. 466, 687 (2); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. xxii.

Footnote 1446:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1259 (2), (3).

Footnote 1447:

  Ibid. 29.

Footnote 1448:

  Ibid. 466, 536, 687; printed in full, Raine, Hexham Priory (Surtees
  Soc.) I, Append. p. cliv.

Footnote 1449:

  L. and P. XI, 1171.

Footnote 1450:

  L. and P. XII (1), 698 (3), 1186.

Footnote 1451:

  Ibid. 466.

Footnote 1452:

  Ibid. 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1453:

  L. and P. XI, 760 (2).

Footnote 1454:

  Ibid. 883.

Footnote 1455:

  Ibid. 989.

Footnote 1456:

  Ibid. 1032; printed in full, Merriman, op. cit. II, no. 169.

Footnote 1457:

  L. and P. XI, 1106, 1162.

Footnote 1458:

  Ibid. 1103, 1106.

Footnote 1459:

  Ibid. 1088, 1116; XII (1), 201 (ii) (iv), 202.

Footnote 1460:

  L. and P. XI, 1128.

Footnote 1461:

  Ibid. 1032; printed in full, Merriman, op. cit. II, no. 169.

Footnote 1462:

  L. and P. XII (1), 466.

Footnote 1463:

  See above.

Footnote 1464:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1465:

  L. and P. XI, 1127; XII (1), 29.

Footnote 1466:

  L. and P. XI, 1139.

Footnote 1467:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 339.

Footnote 1468:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (25); and 945 (88–90); printed in full, Eng.
  Hist. Rev. V, 570, 573; cf. L. and P. XI, 1127; XII (1), 1175 (ii).

Footnote 1469:

  L. and P. XI, 1155, (1), (2), (4).

Footnote 1470:

  Ibid. 1127.

Footnote 1471:

  L. and P. XII (1), 698 (3).

Footnote 1472:

  L. and P. XI, 1127.

Footnote 1473:

  L. and P. XII (1), 29.

Footnote 1474:

  Ibid. 946 (118).

Footnote 1475:

  Yorks. Arch. Journ. XI, 260–1.

Footnote 1476:

  L. and P. XI, 1118; printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of
  Derby (Chetham Soc.), p. 128.

Footnote 1477:

  L. and P. XII (1), 392; printed in full, Coxe, op. cit.

Footnote 1478:

  L. and P. XI, 1134, 1140, 1153, 1154.

Footnote 1479:

  L. and P. XI, 1135.

Footnote 1480:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (28); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 560.

Footnote 1481:

  L. and P. XI, 1162.

Footnote 1482:

  Ibid. 1127.

Footnote 1483:

  Ibid. 1174.

Footnote 1484:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1485:

  Ibid. 1175.

Footnote 1486:

  Ibid. 1135 (2).

Footnote 1487:

  Yorks. Arch. Journ. XI, 261.

Footnote 1488:

  L. and P. XI, 41.

Footnote 1489:

  L. and P. XII (1), 533.

Footnote 1490:

  L. and P. XI, 1170.

Footnote 1491:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (2); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no.
  XXII.

Footnote 1492:

  L. and P. XI, 1171.

Footnote 1493:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (107); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 570.

Footnote 1494:

  L. and P. XI, 1155, (1) (ii), (2) (ii).

Footnote 1495:

  Ibid. 1166.

Footnote 1496:

  Ibid. 1169.

Footnote 1497:

  L. and P. XI, 1230; printed in full, Correspondence of the 3rd Earl of
  Derby (Chetham Soc.) 70–75.

Footnote 1498:

  L. and P. XI, 1232.

Footnote 1499:

  Ibid. 1095.

Footnote 1500:

  Ibid. 1136.

Footnote 1501:

  Ibid. 1155, (5) (ii).

Footnote 1502:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1503:

  Ibid. 1087, 1094, 1103.

Footnote 1504:

  L. and P. XI, 1155, (5), (ii).

Footnote 1505:

  Ibid. 1136.

Footnote 1506:

  Ibid. 958, 1093, 1124, 1152, 1163.

Footnote 1507:

  Ibid. 1180.

Footnote 1508:

  Ibid. 1268.

Footnote 1509:

  Ibid. 1061.

Footnote 1510:

  Ibid. 1103.

Footnote 1511:

  L. and P. XI, 1139.

Footnote 1512:

  Ibid. 1167.

Footnote 1513:

  Ibid. 1147.

Footnote 1514:

  Ibid. 1170.

Footnote 1515:

  Ibid. 1174.

Footnote 1516:

  Ibid. 1162.

Footnote 1517:

  Ibid. 1174.

Footnote 1518:

  L. and P. XI, 1175.

Footnote 1519:

  Ibid. 1174.

Footnote 1520:

  Ibid. 1176; see above, chap. XI.

Footnote 1521:

  L. and P. XI, 1162.

Footnote 1522:

  L. and P. XI, 1176.

Footnote 1523:

  Ibid. 1170.

Footnote 1524:

  Wriothesley, op. cit. I, 58; cf. L. and P. XII (1), 876.

Footnote 1525:

  L. and P. XI, 1097, and note p. 718; cf. 1424.

Footnote 1526:

  Ibid. 1111.

Footnote 1527:

  Ibid. and 1487.

Footnote 1528:

  Ibid. 1110 (1), (2); (3) printed in full, Halliwell-Phillipps, op.
  cit. I, 354.

Footnote 1529:

  L. and P. XI, 780 (2), 936, 987, 988, 1215, 1405–6, 1409, 1420,
  1422–3.

Footnote 1530:

  L. and P. XI, preface, p. X.

Footnote 1531:

  Ibid. 656; printed in full, Tierney, ed. Dodd, Church Hist. of Eng.
  vol. I, Append. no. xlii.

Footnote 1532:

  L. and P. XI, 984; extracts printed by Tierney, op. cit. I, Append.
  no. xliv.

Footnote 1533:

  L. and P. XI, 1143; Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 114, 116.

Footnote 1534:

  L. and P. XI, 1008.

Footnote 1535:

  L. and P. XII (1), 30.

Footnote 1536:

  L. and P. XI, 1177; printed in full, Merriman, op. cit. II, no. 171.

Footnote 1537:

  L. and P. XI, 920.

Footnote 1538:

  Ibid. 841 (iv); 1111; cf. XII (1), 1318.

Footnote 1539:

  L. and P. XI, 1133.

Footnote 1540:

  Ibid. 876.

Footnote 1541:

  L. and P. XII (1), 275.

Footnote 1542:

  L. and P. XI, 1265.

Footnote 1543:

  L. and P. XII (1), 572.

Footnote 1544:

  L. and P. XI, 790; printed in full, Latimer’s Remains (Parker Soc.),
  II, 375; cf. Merriman, op. cit. II, no. 168.

Footnote 1545:

  See above, chap. IV.

Footnote 1546:

  L. and P. XI, 809.

Footnote 1547:

  Ibid. 1328; XII (2), 515.

Footnote 1548:

  L. and P. XI, 879.

Footnote 1549:

  See above, chap. XII.

Footnote 1550:

  L. and P. XI, 1124; printed in full, State Papers, I, 510.

Footnote 1551:

  L. and P. XI, 1128.

Footnote 1552:

  See below, chap. XIX.

Footnote 1553:

  L. and P. XI, 1260.

Footnote 1554:

  L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit.
  chap. V.

Footnote 1555:

  L. and P. XI, 1286, 1292.

Footnote 1556:

  Ibid. 1406.

Footnote 1557:

  Ibid. 1405.

Footnote 1558:

  Ibid. 1406.

Footnote 1559:

  L. and P. XII (2), 952.

Footnote 1560:

  L. and P. XI, 1406.

Footnote 1561:

  L. and P. XI, 1231.

Footnote 1562:

  Ibid. 1406.

Footnote 1563:

  L. and P. XII (1), 86.

Footnote 1564:

  Ibid. 237.

Footnote 1565:

  Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 114, 116, 122; L. and P. XI, 1143, 1159;
  Cal. Venetian S. P. V, 125, 126.

Footnote 1566:

  L. and P. XI, 909.

Footnote 1567:

  Ibid. 1195.

Footnote 1568:

  Ibid. 726; see above, chap. XI.

Footnote 1569:

  L. and P. XI, 737, 750, 751, 769, 776, 788, 803, 825, 834, 845, 850.

Footnote 1570:

  Ibid. 793.

Footnote 1571:

  Ibid. 776.

Footnote 1572:

  Ibid. 822.

Footnote 1573:

  Ibid. 842.

Footnote 1574:

  Ibid. 887.

Footnote 1575:

  Ibid 1143.

Footnote 1576:

  Ibid. 860.

Footnote 1577:

  Ibid. 1217 (6).

Footnote 1578:

  Ibid. 580 (1), (2).

Footnote 1579:

  L. and P. XI, 1143.

Footnote 1580:

  L. and P. XIII (2), 797.

Footnote 1581:

  L. and P. XI, 1350.

Footnote 1582:

  Ibid. 631.

Footnote 1583:

  Ibid. 656; printed in full, Tierney, ed. Dodd, Church Hist, of Eng. I,
  Append. no. xlii.

Footnote 1584:

  L. and P. XI, 848.

Footnote 1585:

  L. and P. XI, 860.

Footnote 1586:

  Ibid. 953.

Footnote 1587:

  Ibid. 976.

Footnote 1588:

  Ibid. 1012.

Footnote 1589:

  Ibid. 1119.

Footnote 1590:

  Ibid. 1172, 1183.

Footnote 1591:

  Ibid. 1173.

Footnote 1592:

  Ibid. 1183.

Footnote 1593:

  Ibid. 1194.

Footnote 1594:

  Ibid. 1203.

Footnote 1595:

  Ibid. 1173.

Footnote 1596:

  L. and P. XI, 826 (2), 955, 1064 (2); XII (1) 1175 (ii).

Footnote 1597:

  L. and P. XI, 1044, 1170.

Footnote 1598:

  Ibid. 1086, see above, chap. IX.

Footnote 1599:

  L. and P. XI, 576; see Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 104.

Footnote 1600:

  L. and P. XI, 779.

Footnote 1601:

  Ibid. 597; Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 105.

Footnote 1602:

  L. and P. XI, 698; Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 110.

Footnote 1603:

  L. and P. XI, 713, 714; Froude, “The Pilgrim,” p. 113.

Footnote 1604:

  L. and P. XI, 744, 779.

Footnote 1605:

  Ibid. 861.

Footnote 1606:

  Ibid. 905.

Footnote 1607:

  Ibid. 1000.

Footnote 1608:

  Ibid. 1275.

Footnote 1609:

  L. and P. XI, 1296.

Footnote 1610:

  L. and P. XII (1), 380.

Footnote 1611:

  L. and P. XI, 1143; Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 114, 116.

Footnote 1612:

  L. and P. XI, 1159 n.

Footnote 1613:

  Ibid. 1159.

Footnote 1614:

  Ibid. 654.

Footnote 1615:

  Ibid. 1100.

Footnote 1616:

  Ibid. 953.

Footnote 1617:

  Ibid. 1001; Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 115.

Footnote 1618:

  See above, chap. VI.

Footnote 1619:

  L. and P. XI, 1012.

Footnote 1620:

  Ibid. 1100, 1101.

Footnote 1621:

  Haile, op. cit. chap. X.

Footnote 1622:

  L. and P. XI, 1131.

Footnote 1623:

  L. and P. XI, 1143; Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 114, 116.

Footnote 1624:

  L. and P. XI, 1159; Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 120, 122.

Footnote 1625:

  L. and P. XI, 976; cf. Cal. S. P. Venetian, V, 125.

Footnote 1626:

  Cal. S. P. Venetian, V, 125; L. and P. XI, 1160; see above, chap. I.

Footnote 1627:

  L. and P. XI, 1173.

Footnote 1628:

  Ibid. 1204; Cal. S. P. Spanish, V (2), 124.

Footnote 1629:

  Cal. S. P. Venetian, V, 126.

Footnote 1630:

  Ibid. 127.

Footnote 1631:

  Ibid. 129.

Footnote 1632:

  Haile, op. cit. chap. X; L. and P. XI, 1353.

Footnote 1633:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1634:

  See above, chap. XIII.

Footnote 1635:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022; 698 (3); 901 (107), printed in full, Eng.
  Hist. Rev. V, 570.

Footnote 1636:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2); see note A at end of chapter.

Footnote 1637:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2).

Footnote 1638:

  Dixon, op. cit. I, chap. IV.

Footnote 1639:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (107); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 571.

Footnote 1640:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1641:

  Ibid. 201 (3), (2).

Footnote 1642:

  Ibid. 853, 1011.

Footnote 1643:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (1).

Footnote 1644:

  L. and P. XII (1), 201, p. 99.

Footnote 1645:

  L. and P. XI, 1187.

Footnote 1646:

  L. and P. XI, 1209, 1210.

Footnote 1647:

  Ibid. 1253.

Footnote 1648:

  Ibid. 1155 (1) and (2).

Footnote 1649:

  York City Records. House Book Vol. XIII, 23 Nov. 1536.

Footnote 1650:

  L. and P. XII (1), 306.

Footnote 1651:

  L. and P. XII (1), 946 (119).

Footnote 1652:

  L. and P. XI, 1223.

Footnote 1653:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (25); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 560.

Footnote 1654:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 340.

Footnote 1655:

  L. and P. XII (1), 29.

Footnote 1656:

  Ibid. 687 (2); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. XXII.

Footnote 1657:

  Ibid. 914.

Footnote 1658:

  L. and P. XI, 1211.

Footnote 1659:

  L. and P. XI, 1246; printed in full, Speed, op. cit. bk IX, ch. 21.

Footnote 1660:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (p. 409); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  566; cf. L. and P. XI, 1223.

Footnote 1661:

  Ibid. 1243 (2).

Footnote 1662:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (25); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 560.

Footnote 1663:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; 29.

Footnote 1664:

  Ibid. 901 (30); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 560.

Footnote 1665:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 565.

Footnote 1666:

  See below, chap. XVI.

Footnote 1667:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (3).

Footnote 1668:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (19); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 559.

Footnote 1669:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (17); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 559.

Footnote 1670:

  L. and P. XI, 853; see above, chap. V.

Footnote 1671:

  L. and P. XI, 1086.

Footnote 1672:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (44); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 570.

Footnote 1673:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (3).

Footnote 1674:

  Ibid. (2).

Footnote 1675:

  See note B at end of chapter.

Footnote 1676:

  _injured._

Footnote 1677:

  _leases._

Footnote 1678:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  561–2.

Footnote 1679:

  Cunningham, op. cit. I, bk. V, section 5.

Footnote 1680:

  Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 345.

Footnote 1681:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (3).

Footnote 1682:

  See above, chap. III.

Footnote 1683:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (44); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 569.

Footnote 1684:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 1685:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  562–3.

Footnote 1686:

  L. and P. XI, 1245.

Footnote 1687:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (19); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 559.

Footnote 1688:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2).

Footnote 1689:

  See above, chap. IV.

Footnote 1690:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (30); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 560.

Footnote 1691:

  L. and P. XI, 376.

Footnote 1692:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2).

Footnote 1693:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (107); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 570.

Footnote 1694:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (30); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 560.

Footnote 1695:

  L. and P. XII (1), 945 (48); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 572.

Footnote 1696:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (31); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  560–1.

Footnote 1697:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (32); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 567.

Footnote 1698:

  L. and P. XI, 1244.

Footnote 1699:

  See note C at end of chapter.

Footnote 1700:

  See above, chap. XIII.

Footnote 1701:

  L. and P. XII (1), 687 (2); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no.
  XXII.

Footnote 1702:

  L. and P. XII. (1), 786 (ii).

Footnote 1703:

  L. and P. XIV (2), 750.

Footnote 1704:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 342.

Footnote 1705:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 1706:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (3).

Footnote 1707:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (32); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 562.

Footnote 1708:

  Froude, op. cit. I, chap. VII.

Footnote 1709:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 562.

Footnote 1710:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1711:

  Pollard, op. cit. chap. XII.

Footnote 1712:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 562.

Footnote 1713:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 562.

Footnote 1714:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1715:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (54); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 571.

Footnote 1716:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (25); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 560.

Footnote 1717:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (27 misprinted 107); printed in full, Eng.
  Hist. Rev. V, 570.

Footnote 1718:

  L. and P. XI, 1244.

Footnote 1719:

  Dict. Nat. Biog. arts. Audley and Riche.

Footnote 1720:

  L. and P. XI, 1244.

Footnote 1721:

  Its name is illegible.

Footnote 1722:

  L. and P. XI, 1244.

Footnote 1723:

  See note D at end of chapter.

Footnote 1724:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2).

Footnote 1725:

  See note E at end of chapter.

Footnote 1726:

  Park, Parliamentary Representation of Yorkshire, Pontefract.

Footnote 1727:

  Ibid. York, Hull, Scarborough.

Footnote 1728:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6 (ii); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 343.

Footnote 1729:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1730:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (37); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 567.

Footnote 1731:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2).

Footnote 1732:

  Pollard, op. cit. chap. II.

Footnote 1733:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (39) and (40); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev.
  V, 568.

Footnote 1734:

  L. and P. XIII (2), 804 (6).

Footnote 1735:

  Pollard, op. cit. chap. X.

Footnote 1736:

  See above, chap. XIII.

Footnote 1737:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  563–4.

Footnote 1738:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23, 2, 5); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  564.

Footnote 1739:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1740:

  Stubbs, Constit. Hist, of Eng. III, chap, XVIII, sect. 310, 313, 358.

Footnote 1741:

  Pollard, The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources, II, no. 8.

Footnote 1742:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 564.

Footnote 1743:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2).

Footnote 1744:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23, 2, 5); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  564.

Footnote 1745:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1746:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1747:

  25 Hen. VIII, cap. 17.

Footnote 1748:

  Bax, op. cit. 50, 322–4.

Footnote 1749:

  Russell, op. cit. 91, 121, 141.

Footnote 1750:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 1751:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 563.

Footnote 1752:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2).

Footnote 1753:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 563.

Footnote 1754:

  L. and P. XII (1), 945 (4); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 566.

Footnote 1755:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23).

Footnote 1756:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1757:

  Pollock, op. cit. 98.

Footnote 1758:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (44); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 570.

Footnote 1759:

  See article 7.

Footnote 1760:

  L. and P. XI, 1244.

Footnote 1761:

  Ibid. 1182 (2).

Footnote 1762:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 565.

Footnote 1763:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2).

Footnote 1764:

  L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 343.

Footnote 1765:

  Baildon, Select Cases in the Court of Chancery (Selden Soc.), preface.

Footnote 1766:

  Maitland, English Law and the Renaissance, note 51.

Footnote 1767:

  Maitland, op. cit. ibid. note 11.

Footnote 1768:

  Ibid. note 33.

Footnote 1769:

  Acts of the Privy Council, 1547–50, pp. 48–50.

Footnote 1770:

  Maitland, op. cit.

Footnote 1771:

  Maitland, op. cit. note 51; see above, art. 1.

Footnote 1772:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (2).

Footnote 1773:

  Ibid.

Footnote 1774:

  Ibid. 1244.

Footnote 1775:

  Information supplied by the Rev. J. Wilson; cf. Leadam, Select Cases
  in the Court of Star Chamber, II, pp. lxiii-lxv; Cunningham, op. cit.
  I, bk. V, chap. 5, section 152, and references there; Tawney, The
  Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century, 47, 50, 146–50, 297, 301.

Footnote 1776:

  Booth, Halmota Prior. Dun. (Surtees Soc.), p. 21.

Footnote 1777:

  Leadam, op. cit. pp. lxii-iii.

Footnote 1778:

  L. and P. XII (1), 914; cf. Ibid. 478 and 687.

Footnote 1779:

  L. and P. XI, 1080.

Footnote 1780:

  Leadam, op. cit. p. XC.

Footnote 1781:

  See above, chap. IX.

Footnote 1782:

  Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 73.

Footnote 1783:

  L. and P. XI, 1080.

Footnote 1784:

  Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 72.

Footnote 1785:

  See V. C. H. Dur. I, 272, art. Boldon Book, by T. G. Lapsley, and
  references there; V. C. H. Cumberland, I, 313, art. Domesday Book, by
  J. Wilson, and references there.

Footnote 1786:

  Nicolson and Burn, op. cit. I, 292–4.

Footnote 1787:

  Dowell, op. cit. I, book III, chap. 1, part 2, section 1.

Footnote 1788:

  L. and P. XI, 960, 1155 (2) (ii).

Footnote 1789:

  Royal Hist. Soc. Trans, XVIII, 196; cf. Tawney, op. cit. 88, 239–43,
  322–7, 334–5, 360–1.

Footnote 1790:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 1791:

  Royal Hist. Soc. Trans, XVIII, 199.

Footnote 1792:

  L. and P. XI, 1244.

Footnote 1793:

  Foxe, Book of Martyrs (ed. Milner), p. 597.

Footnote 1794:

  Cotton MSS. Cleopatra E 4, fol. 215. B.M.; quoted by Froude, op. cit.
  II, chap. XIII.

Footnote 1795:

  See chap. XIX.

Footnote 1796:

  See chaps. III and XIII.

Footnote 1797:

  L. and P. XI, 1244; printed in full, Speed, Hist. of Great Britain,
  bk. IX, chap. 21.

Footnote 1798:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175.

Footnote 1799:

  Ibid. 945 (100–1); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 573.

Footnote 1800:

  L. and P. XII (1) 901 (102); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 572.

Footnote 1801:

  L. and P. XI, 1336.

Footnote 1802:

  See note F at end of chapter.

Footnote 1803:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1011; see above, chap. IX.

Footnote 1804:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1011.

Footnote 1805:

  Ibid. 1022.

Footnote 1806:

  Ibid. 1011.

Footnote 1807:

  Ibid. 1022.

Footnote 1808:

  Ibid. 306.

Footnote 1809:

  Dic. Nat. Biog. art. Edward Lee.

Footnote 1810:

  Seebohm, The Oxford Reformers, chap. XVI, sections IV, IX.

Footnote 1811:

  Duff, op. cit. p. 45.

Footnote 1812:

  L. and P. XII (1), 532, 533.

Footnote 1813:

  Ibid. 1022.

Footnote 1814:

  L. and P. XI, 1336.

Footnote 1815:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1021; see note G at end of chapter.

Footnote 1816:

  L. and P. XI, 1300.

Footnote 1817:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1021.

Footnote 1818:

  Ibid. 786 (ii, 2).

Footnote 1819:

  Ibid. 1021.

Footnote 1820:

  Ibid. 901 (102); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 572.

Footnote 1821:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1822:

  Ibid. 901 (102); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 572.

Footnote 1823:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1011, 1021.

Footnote 1824:

  L. and P. XI, 1300; XII (1), 1021.

Footnote 1825:

  L. and P. XI, 1300; XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1826:

  L. and P. XI, 1336.

Footnote 1827:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1828:

  L. and P. XI, 1300.

Footnote 1829:

  L. and P. XII (1), 33.

Footnote 1830:

  Ibid. 1022.

Footnote 1831:

  Ibid. 786 (ii, 2).

Footnote 1832:

  L. and P. XI, 1300.

Footnote 1833:

  Ibid. 1336.

Footnote 1834:

  L. and P. XII (1), 306.

Footnote 1835:

  Ibid. 786 (ii, 1).

Footnote 1836:

  Valor Eccles. V, 207.

Footnote 1837:

  Baildon, Monastic Notes (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), I, 107.

Footnote 1838:

  Valor Eccles. V, 132.

Footnote 1839:

  Ibid. 95.

Footnote 1840:

  Ibid. 110.

Footnote 1841:

  Ibid. 140.

Footnote 1842:

  L. and P. XII (1), 786 (ii, 1); 1021.

Footnote 1843:

  L. and P. XII (1), 945 (97); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 573.

Footnote 1844:

  L. and P. XII (1), 901 (107); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 570.

Footnote 1845:

  See note H at end of chapter.

Footnote 1846:

  L. and P. XII (1), 786 (6).

Footnote 1847:

  Ibid. 786 (ii, 2), 1021.

Footnote 1848:

  See above, chap. I.

Footnote 1849:

  L. and P. XII (1), 786 (ii, 2).

Footnote 1850:

  L. and P. XII (1), 786 (ii, 2).

Footnote 1851:

  Ibid.; and 698 (3).

Footnote 1852:

  Ibid. 1021.

Footnote 1853:

  Ibid. 698 (3).

Footnote 1854:

  Ibid. 786 (ii, 2), 1021.

Footnote 1855:

  L. and P. XII (1), 786 (ii, 3).

Footnote 1856:

  Ibid. 698 (3).

Footnote 1857:

  Ibid. 1022.

Footnote 1858:

  Ibid. 786 (ii, 3).

Footnote 1859:

  Ibid. 698 (3).

Footnote 1860:

  Ibid. 786 (ii, 3).

Footnote 1861:

  Ibid. 698 (3).

Footnote 1862:

  L. and P. XII (1), 945 (100–5); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  573.

Footnote 1863:

  L. and P. XII (1), 789 (ii).

Footnote 1864:

  Ibid. 900 (93); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 555.

Footnote 1865:

  L. and P. XII (1), 945 (93, 104, 105); printed in full, Eng. Hist.
  Rev. V, 573.

Footnote 1866:

  L. and P. XII (1), 945 (94, 95); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V,
  573.

Footnote 1867:

  L. and P. XII (1), 945 (97); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 573.

Footnote 1868:

  L. and P. XI, 1182 (1).

Footnote 1869:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1022.

Footnote 1870:

  Ibid. 901 (23); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 566–7.

Footnote 1871:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1175 (ii).

Footnote 1872:

  Pollard, op. cit. chap. XII.

Footnote 1873:

  Park, op. cit. under the respective boroughs.

Footnote 1874:

  L. and P. III, 2931.

Footnote 1875:

  L. and P. XII (1), 1011.

Footnote 1876:

  Ibid. 786 (ii, 1).

Footnote 1877:

  Ibid. 1011; 1021.

Footnote 1878:

  Yorks. Arch. Journ. XIII. 390.

Footnote 1879:

  Boothroyd, Pontefract, 346.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 ● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
 ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last
     chapter.
 ● Did not make the "Additions and Corrections" to the document.
 ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
 ● Enclosed bold and blackletter font in =equals=.
 ● The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to
     individual characters (like 2^d) and even entire phrases (like
     1^{st}).
 ● HTML alt text was added for images that didn’t have captions.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77706 ***