diff options
Diffstat (limited to '78639-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 78639-0.txt | 26798 |
1 files changed, 26798 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/78639-0.txt b/78639-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..82ff895 --- /dev/null +++ b/78639-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,26798 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78639 *** + + + + + THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE + 1536–1537 + + AND + + THE EXETER CONSPIRACY + 1538 + + + IN TWO VOLUMES + VOL. II + + + CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS + C. F. CLAY, MANAGER + + =London=: FETTER LANE, E.C. + + =Edinburgh=: 100 PRINCES STREET + +[Illustration: Logo] + + =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 II + + + Cambridge: + at the University Press + 1915 + + + =Cambridge=: + PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. + AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS + + + + + CONTENTS + + + CHAPTER PAGE + XV THE SECOND APPOINTMENT AT DONCASTER 1 + XVI THE KING’S POLICY 24 + XVII HALLAM AND BIGOD 55 + XVIII THE DUKE OF NORFOLK’S MISSION 99 + XIX THE KING’S PEACE 141 + XX THE END OF THE PILGRIMAGE 182 + XXI THE COUNCIL OF THE NORTH 226 + XXII THE WHITE ROSE PARTY 277 + XXIII THE EXETER CONSPIRACY 297 + XXIV CONCLUSION 329 + BIBLIOGRAPHY 335 + INDEX 340 + + + + + ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS + + + PAGE + + =80= The Richmondshire articles are printed in full in “Richmondshire + Wills,” preface, p. xvii (Surtees Society). + + =126= Hutton of Snaith. Perhaps he was the bailiff of Snaith mentioned + in connection with Hallam’s rising, see pp. 49 and 64; but in + that case it is odd that anything could be found against him + in Durham. Norfolk calls him “one of the chief captains of the + first rebellion.” (L. and P. XII (1), 416 (2).) + + =130= _For_ William Bowyer _read_ Richard Bowyer. + + =151= On 22 February 1536–7 it was reported in Norfolk that seven of + the Lincolnshire rebels had been executed by the Duke of + Suffolk’s orders. (L. and P. XII (1), 424; printed in full, + Furnivall, “Ballads from MSS,” vol. I, pt 2, p. 311 [Ballad + Society].) + + =176= For another political play which probably dealt with the + Pilgrimage of Grace, see “The Date of Albion, Knight,” by M. + H. Dodds in “The Library,” April 1913. + + =189= Cromwell’s name is used rather loosely throughout the passages + relating to the evidence. As he was the moving spirit in the + prosecution he is described as making all the notes and + drawing all the conclusions found among the documents relating + to the trials. + + =217= Delete Lord Cobham’s name, as no expression of his opinions is + recorded in the preceding pages. + + =219= Sir Ingram Percy’s will is printed in “North Country Wills” + (Surtees Society), I, 156. + + + + + CHAPTER XV + THE SECOND APPOINTMENT AT DONCASTER + + +The position and objects of the rebels having been set forth, it is now +time to consider the situation from the King’s point of view. + +The Pilgrims had stated their grievances definitely, and begged the King +to tell them what redress he was prepared to give. In order to discover +what answer he would make, it is necessary to go back to the mission of +Bowes and Ellerker at the beginning of November. On their first arrival +Henry had himself drawn up a reply to the five articles[1], very much on +the lines of his reply to Lincolnshire[2], but on the whole milder in +tone. The King condescended almost to argument, as for instance in the +recital of the names of his Privy Council, now full of noblemen, whereas +at the beginning of his reign there had been but two nobles of the old +blood, “others, as the Lords Marney and Darcy, scant well-born +gentlemen.” Also he demanded the surrender of only ten ringleaders, +instead of a hundred, as in Lincolnshire[3]. It is not necessary to go +into the details of the reply, however, for in essence it was simply a +refusal to listen to any of the rebels’ remonstrances, and it had no +external result because it was never sent. + +When he wrote it Henry seems to have been under the impression that the +Pilgrims were already scattered, and that the affair would be over +almost as quickly as the Lincolnshire rising. By the time the reply was +received the rebels might be expected to be in a properly submissive +frame of mind. As he gradually became convinced that the truce was +merely a truce, and not a capitulation, the dreadful suspicion may have +dawned in his mind that these traitors might not accept his gracious +answer, written with his own hand, in the proper spirit. They might +hesitate, argue, even reject it. The very idea of such a humiliation was +too terrible to be entertained. The King would not run such a risk. +Instead of issuing his reply to the Yorkshiremen, he caused his reply to +Lincolnshire to be printed, thus returning an indirect answer to the +rebels, without exposing himself. But his labour was not wasted, for he +let it be known among the Pilgrims that he had answered their petition, +but that he would not as yet allow them to see his reply. His letter to +Ellerker and Bowes supplied this omission to some extent, and once the +Pilgrims had made a full list of their grievances, as a substitute for +their first general petition, the King’s answer became quite +insufficient. The stages by which Henry was reluctantly forced to +acknowledge that he was obliged to treat formally with the Pilgrims have +already been traced. On 14 November he had resolved to send Norfolk and +Fitzwilliam to negotiate with them[4], and the first set of instructions +was drawn up for their direction. They were to be provided with a +safe-conduct under the Great Seal, “a proclamation implying a pardon,” +and the King’s original answer. On their arrival at Doncaster they were +permitted to arrange an interview with Darcy and three hundred others. +They were to induce this company to come to them merely on their own +promise of safety if possible, but if they could not be persuaded that +this was sufficient security they might be given the safe-conduct. On +this point of the safe-conduct the King was extremely sensitive. He +seems to have felt that to grant one was a kind of recognition of +belligerency; also it hurt his pride to acknowledge that any of his +subjects were not wholly at his mercy. Apart from this we perhaps may +see here one of the extraordinary freaks of his conscience. He would +have had no hesitation in ordering Suffolk to seize the Pilgrims who had +come to negotiate with Norfolk on the security of Norfolk’s word, but he +would prefer not to violate his own safe-conduct. Except for this matter +there is not much of importance in these first instructions to Norfolk. +Henry was not going to give way on any point. Darcy and his company must +be persuaded and exhorted by the Duke to submit themselves entirely to +the King, to make no further question concerning their petitions, and to +accept the pardon which the King was willing to extend to all but a few +persons specially named. If the rebels would conform themselves +absolutely and surrender the aforesaid ringleaders they might be +permitted to receive the King’s answer “in a much more certain sort than +the articles were proponed so that all indifferent men must be +content.”[5] If they would submit, Norfolk was to administer to them the +oath of the Lincolnshire men; if they refused he was to gain as much +time as possible by discussion, and at the first favourable opportunity +he must break off the negotiations and straightway attack the rebels[6]. + +With these instructions Norfolk and Fitzwilliam set out. On 27 November +the King wrote to them at Leicester. The rebels’ attitude was still very +threatening, and he seems to have thought that there was little prospect +of peace, but he was still determined not to yield a single point; he +would not give hostages for Aske; he would not grant fourteen days’ +truce for the appointment, “our instructions treat of a time to be won +by policy, and not of an abstinence by pact, which would give them time +to fortify themselves.”[7] + +These letters and instructions must have been very painful reading for +Norfolk and the Admiral. It was abundantly evident by this time that +there was no chance of winning over Darcy, and as far as could be +discovered the other leaders were equally unapproachable. For a short +while the royalists entertained some hope of winning over Aske, owing to +the report of a spy. This man was called Knight, and was a servant of +Sir Francis Brian[8]. Knight went into the rebels’ country about 14 +November[9], to learn what he could about their strength. When he was in +York, his appearance aroused suspicion, but he escaped by saying that he +was a servant of Sir Peter Vavasour. On 15 November, however, he was +recognised as Brian’s servant and taken before Aske. With great presence +of mind and some humour Knight told the captain that Sir Francis had +sent him in pursuit of his chaplain who was a thief[10]. Aske sent +Knight back to his master with a letter to request a description of the +missing chaplain, as he was determined not to protect bad +characters[11]. It was Knight who told Sir Francis that Aske had only +one eye. He had returned to his master by 18 November[12]. Apparently +Knight had had some communication with Sir Peter Vavasour, whose name he +had used as a protection, although Sir Peter was with the Pilgrims[13]. +Knight told Sir Francis Brian that, according to Sir Peter, Aske had +been heard to say that some men who were not suspected were worse than +he, and that he would gladly accept the King’s pardon. Brian repeated +this to Sir Anthony Browne, who sent the report on to Norfolk and +Fitzwilliam. The King’s deputies reached Nottingham on Wednesday 29 +November, and there they wrote to Sir Peter Vavasour[14]. They stated +that it had been represented to them that Aske was wavering. If he +would, he could do more service than a greater man, and Sir Peter must +urge him to throw himself on the King’s mercy. In token of his goodwill, +let him come to the meeting at Doncaster without hostages, bringing with +him this letter, which should be his safeguard[15]. This application to +the supposed originator of the roundabout story demolished it +altogether. Vavasour wrote back to say that there was no truth in the +report that Aske was wavering. He himself dared not sign his letter, +lest it should be intercepted. Thus all hope from this quarter +vanished[16]. The reports from the north showed no signs of giving way +on the part of the rebels. On the contrary, it was doubtful whether they +would consent to treat at all. If they were really so much excited and +so confident it was quite evident that they would not humbly accept any +answer which the King might choose to make. + +It may be asked why the royalists should fear the prospect of battle, +when they had at their backs London, the King’s treasure and the King’s +fleet. Norfolk and the nobles with him were honestly on Henry’s side, +but the particular sting lay in the fact that they would be fighting for +Cromwell. They would be actually the protectors and maintainers of the +man whom they most detested. While they were risking their lives and +spending their money in his hated cause, he would be at the King’s side, +enjoying the King’s favour, and probably poisoning the King’s mind +against them. In the circumstances it is not surprising that Norfolk, in +particular, was ready to do almost anything rather than fight. The state +of his feelings may be judged by the fact that between 24 November and 2 +December he found courage to write to the King laying before him the +situation at its very worst[17]. The letter seems to have been carried +by Sir John Russell. It is lost, but there was a passage in it very +irritating to Henry, in which Norfolk declared that everything depended +on the weather; the waters of the river were falling and he could trust +neither to Trent nor to Don[18]; moreover he enclosed the evidence of +sixty gentlemen that “other parties were not to be trusted unto.”[19] +These other parties were probably the leaders of the Pilgrimage, Darcy, +Latimer and the rest, and the report was that they would not be +persuaded to betray their cause and come over to the King, as he hoped. + +Henry was furiously angry at the contents of this letter. His situation +with regard to Norfolk was indeed peculiarly galling to a man of his +pride and temper. Norfolk for the moment was indispensable; he might not +be a very good general, but he was the only one Henry possessed. Until +the rebellion was suppressed the King could not afford to quarrel with +him. But, while conscious of his own helplessness, Henry did not trust +Norfolk in the least. He did not believe that the desperate letter +contained a true account of the rebels’ position; in his eyes it was all +a trick to frighten him into coming to terms. Yet Norfolk could not be +superseded, because there was no one to take his place, and he could not +be forced to insist that the rebels should either fight or accept +Henry’s terms, because if Henry threatened him too boldly it was very +probable that he would join the rebels himself. In the replies which +were drawn up on 2 December, the King put a great restraint upon +himself. Nevertheless the private letter which he sent to Norfolk was +sufficiently alarming. Henry complained that Norfolk’s desperate reports +agreed neither with the information of spies nor with each other. In the +first campaign he had particularly declared that he could hold the line +of the Trent, and had attributed all his ill success to Shrewsbury’s +advance to the Don. Now he said that he could hold neither Don nor +Trent, and yet it was evident that Shrewsbury’s advance had saved a +large district for the King[20]. From Newark he had written that he +would esteem no promise made to the rebels nor think his honour touched +in the breach of it[21], but nevertheless he had come to terms with +them, disbanded his army without any exploit, and favoured their +petitions at court. “We have now declared to you our whole stomach, as +to him that we love and trust, which if you take as it is meant we doubt +not but you will thank us, and by your deeds cause us eftsoons to thank +you.”[22] This was on the whole a temperate letter, but there is an +undercurrent of restrained fury running through it which must have been +very alarming to Norfolk. Such a rebuke might have goaded a loyal man +into fighting immediately, or might have frightened a cautious man into +going straight over to the rebels; but Henry knew Norfolk’s character. +The only emotion which it aroused in him was an intense desire to +dispose of this tiresome business and return to court, where his +“back-friends” must be intriguing against him. + +At the same time the Privy Council received news that, according to +letters from Sir William Musgrave, Tynedale and Reedsdale were loyal, +Cumberland and Westmorland not ill-disposed, Lord Clifford was holding +Carlisle and the Earl of Cumberland Skipton[23]. They thought therefore +that Norfolk had only to deal with Yorkshire. They wrote to him to +engage the rebels in conference while Suffolk prepared to attack them +from the east, and Shrewsbury and Derby on the west. If the rebels could +not be persuaded to accept the limited pardon and give up their +ringleaders, he was to attack at once, for the King would on no account +grant a general pardon. They enclosed the King’s letter, but assured +Norfolk that whatever it might contain the King was as gracious to him +as ever he was in his life, from which it appears that they were rather +nervous about the effect that Henry’s remonstrance might have[24]. Sir +John Russell also carried back a secret letter from the King to +Shrewsbury. It is a high tribute to the old Earl’s character that all +parties trusted him; even the King placed more reliance on him than on +Norfolk, although he now showed his confidence by asking him to do a +dirty piece of work. In his reports Shrewsbury, whenever possible, had +spoken a good word for his old friend Darcy. Henry now commissioned him +to enter into secret negotiations with Darcy and Aske. He was not to +allow the rest of the Council to know anything about it, but if he could +by any means persuade them to come over to the King, he might give them +the pardons, made out, one for Darcy, and the other for Aske, which +Russell had in his possession. “The dates which are left blank you have +power to fill up, but you must do so in such sort that there appear no +diversity of hands.” Was forgery one of the ordinary accomplishments of +a Tudor nobleman? Russell also took a set of articles which Shrewsbury +was empowered to declare if no terms were made with the rebels, but no +copy of these articles has survived[25]. + +On the very day that these letters were despatched, Saturday 2 December, +Norfolk wrote again to the King from Welbeck, still more emphatically +setting forth the impossibility of inducing the rebels to submit +unconditionally[26]. Sir Francis Brian carried this letter, and Suffolk +also sent his opinion, which agreed with Norfolk’s, that if the King +would not grant a free parliament and a general pardon there was no hope +of coming to terms[27]. Sir Francis reached the court, at Richmond, on +the night of Sunday 3 December[28]. After he had made his report the +King could no longer doubt the gravity of the position. It was possible +to believe that Norfolk was exaggerating, but Suffolk and Sir Francis +himself were entirely loyal and their information must be taken +seriously. Although he had urged both Suffolk and Norfolk to fight, +Henry did not want to provoke actual warfare unless he could be quite +certain of winning. Since there was no alternative between concession +and battle he reluctantly gave directions for a new set of instructions +to be drawn up[29]. In the beginning of this document he again +complained of the desperate contents of Norfolk’s letters. He reproached +all the council of his army for neglecting to seize and fortify the Don, +and for allowing the rebels to muster in such force at Pontefract +without making corresponding levies. They were on no account to treat +unless the numbers were equal on both sides,—either the Pilgrims must +disband, or the King’s troops must be increased. If this matter could be +adjusted Norfolk, Fitzwilliam and the others were empowered to hold the +conference. As usual the King held forth at great length on the +reproaches that they must heap on the rebels for their disloyalty, +ingratitude, etc., but if all their eloquence did not avail to make the +Pilgrims accept the limited pardon, Norfolk was to say that his +commission extended no further, but that if they would state clearly +what they wanted he would venture to prolong the truce and himself lay +their petition before the King. He was to persuade them that they only +wanted a general pardon and a free parliament; they must be made to sign +these articles and to undertake not to molest the King on any other +point. Then Norfolk might make a truce for six or seven days, _as if to +send to the King_, and at the end of this time he might present to them +the general pardon which Sir John Russell would carry with him when he +delivered these instructions. At the same time Norfolk might give them +the King’s promise that a parliament should be held, beginning on the +last day of September 1537 at any place the King might appoint. If they +insisted on any other articles, besides the pardon and the parliament, +Norfolk was to make a truce for twenty days, to let the King know all +particulars, and to send secretly to Derby to summon all the forces of +Cheshire and Lancashire, to Suffolk to prepare Lincolnshire, while he +himself got ready to seize all the fords of the Don until the King could +make his preparations for advancing against the rebels in person[30]. +The idea of prolonging the truce while secretly levying forces seems to +have been suggested in the first place by Norfolk in a letter from +Newark that has not been preserved. In a postscript the King replied to +Norfolk’s suggestion and to another letter from Nottingham. Although he +approved of the general scheme, he would give no definite orders for +further levies, as it would be so expensive. He promised to send three +more safe-conducts, in addition to the one drawn up on 30 November which +Norfolk had already received[31]; the new ones were made out for +sixteen, twenty and forty days respectively, as he did not know what +length of time might be agreed upon, and if a blank safe-conduct were +sent, it would be visible that the date had been filled in by another +hand[32]. Commissions of lieutenancy were also sent, made out to Norfolk +and Shrewsbury, and to Norfolk and the Council. The King concluded by +complaining again of their desperate letters. If they must send him so +much bad news, he said, they might send some good news to balance it, or +at least suggest some “honest remedy” for the evil. There is one other +small but significant point: in the original draft orders are given for +the payment of the men now with Norfolk, namely the “bands” of Sir John +Russell, Sir Francis Brian, Sir Anthony Browne and Richard Cromwell, but +the names of Sir Francis Brian and Richard Cromwell are struck out. Sir +Francis had just brought up letters from Norfolk, and the rebels had +refused to treat while Richard Cromwell was in Norfolk’s company. The +King silently yielded this point without any argument or blustering[33]. + +With these instructions Henry sent a letter to Suffolk[34]. After +briefly telling him that he was prepared, in case of extremity, to grant +a free pardon and a parliament to the rebels, “although we thought the +granting of such a pardon would only encourage others,” he gave orders +that Suffolk must make up his companies to eight thousand men, and +prepare to attack at once on receiving the word from Norfolk. The first +plan was that on the alarm he should seize Hull and advance on York, +sending word to Lord Clifford to set out from Carlisle and meet him. But +this scheme was completely cancelled and he was ordered not to attempt +to take Hull, but to await further advice. Letters and proclamations +were enclosed to be sent by sea to Berwick and thence distributed to +Lord Clifford, Sir William Musgrave, Edward Aglionby (of Carlisle), Sir +Thomas Clifford, Sir Reynold Carnaby and the towns of Berwick and +Carlisle. Suffolk received a commission of lieutenancy joining him with +Norfolk and Shrewsbury[35], and a pardon and oath to be proclaimed and +administered in Marshland and Holderness[36]. + +The Privy Council wrote to Norfolk at the same time, but their letter +only hints at the King’s change of attitude[37]. These Privy Council +letters seem to have been composed to sweeten the King’s more outspoken +despatches. This one begins with warm praises of Norfolk and his +colleagues. The King was making plans in case of war, but the Privy +Council contemplated peace. If, as they did not doubt, Norfolk brought +the affair to a satisfactory conclusion, the King was pleased with the +Duke’s plan that he should immediately advance into Yorkshire, with a +good train of noblemen and gentlemen, to administer the oath; but +Norfolk must send further particulars, as the King’s charges had been +great, and expenses must be kept down. They sent the Ten Articles and +copies of the circular to the bishops[38], to be declared to the people. +“There remains one thing to be considered which the King has much to +heart and we all no less desire—the preservation of his Grace’s honour, +which will be much touched if no man be reserved to punishment.” There +is a certain humour in the earnestness with which the Council beseech +Norfolk to “reserve” some vile persons, even if only a very few, and +among them, if possible, Sir Robert Constable[39]. Sir Robert had +offended the King mortally by saying that the truce had been broken when +Edward Waters was sent to Scarborough. Henry, in his usual daring +fashion, had retorted the reproach on the rebels in his instructions; +Norfolk was to complain of the taking of Edward Waters as an innovation +during the truce[40]. + +The Council also mentioned that the King had written to the Earl of +Northumberland to come up to London “if nothing chance to him in the +mean season,”[41] rather a sinister reservation. The Earl had sent a +ring as a token to the King at the beginning of the month, through +Suffolk’s hands[42]. They added that Norfolk would doubtless see that +the Earl’s brethren did no displeasure, a task somewhat beyond his +power[43]. + +Such were the final instructions despatched to Norfolk before the +conference. They did not arrive till Wednesday 6 December, and would +have been too late if the meeting had not been deferred for a day. + +On Saturday 2 December Norfolk was at Welbeck writing desperate letters +to the King. On Sunday 3 December he was at Hatfield, and with him were +his half-brother Lord William Howard, Sir William Fitzwilliam and Sir +Anthony Browne[44]. He had summoned Shrewsbury to join them, but +Shrewsbury that day sent word that he was so ill that it would be +impossible for him to reach Doncaster before Wednesday[45]. Probably +Lancaster Herald arranged to defer the meeting when he went to +Pontefract that eventful Sunday. Shrewsbury’s letter was written in the +morning, and after dinner Norfolk mentioned in a letter to the King that +the meeting would not be till Wednesday. The principal object of the +letter was to give warning that William Steward of Scotland was on his +way to France and had passed right through the rebel country. It would +therefore be well to stop him, as he might be carrying messages from the +rebels to the King of Scotland. Norfolk reported that the nobles at +Pontefract were in half captivity to the commons, who were very numerous +and wild, but he was not without hopes of winning over some of the +gentlemen[46]. This no doubt is an allusion to the Archbishop’s sermon +and the tumult in the church. Norfolk must have written on the report of +Lancaster Herald. It is rather difficult to discover exactly what +arrangements the Herald made for the first meeting on Monday. Robert +Aske said afterwards that he delivered the King’s safe-conduct for ten +knights and esquires, each accompanied by three servants[47]. On the +other hand Fitzwilliam, writing on Monday 4 December, told the King that +the gentlemen were coming with only two servants each and “upon our +honours without your Grace’s safe-conduct.”[48] Fitzwilliam would be the +better authority, as Aske may easily have forgotten the exact +particulars, if it were not possible that Fitzwilliam was trying to +soothe the King, whose angry letters of 2 December had just been +received. They seem to have arrived early on Monday morning before the +meeting, and Norfolk and Fitzwilliam answered them at 8 A.M. In these +replies therefore there is no record of what passed. Norfolk wrote to +the King and to the Council. Both his letters are full of protestations +of loyalty; he insisted that he had only spoken the plain truth all +through, as it was his duty to warn the King of the danger in which he +stood. Doubtless he had mismanaged affairs, but that was due to his old +age and feebleness, unfit as he was for the great duties which the King +had forced upon him. He hoped now that they would not send him north, as +he had suggested, because he wanted to go home[49]. The letters are very +picturesque but they contain no information about the negotiations with +the rebels. + +After despatching these letters from Hatfield, Norfolk must have gone to +Doncaster to meet the Pilgrims’ representatives. Sir Thomas Hilton and +his companions had received full instructions from the Pilgrims’ +council. They were (1) “to declare to the Duke of Norfolk and other +lords that our meeting of our part is meant of assured truth without any +manner of deceit or ‘male ingyne’: (2) to receive the King’s +safe-conduct, and to deliver our safe-conduct for the assurance of the +lords there: (3) to entreat of our general pardon, including all persons +who in heart, word or deed aided the federation in this our quarrel, and +that we be not mentioned in the pardon, nor in any records as rebels and +traitors: (4) that Richard Cromwell nor none of his kind nor sort be at +our meeting at Doncaster: (5) to receive the King’s answer by the +declaration of the lords, and to certify the very intent thereof to us +here: (6) to know what authority the lords have to promise: (7) to +demand what pledge they would deliver for the captain: (8) if the +particulars are required, then to descend to divers particulars.”[50] + +To all this Norfolk had no very truthful reply, particularly if it is +correct to suppose that he did not receive the King’s final instructions +until Wednesday. He could not honestly answer to (1) that he came to the +meeting “without any manner of deceit or ‘male ingyne,’” seeing that he +knew his object was to gain time until the King’s troops were ready to +make an attack. On that very day Suffolk was writing to ask for guns, +gunners, arrows, etc., saying that he was making musters and every day +expected the King’s two ships[51]. With regard to (2) Norfolk’s orders +were if possible to withhold the King’s safe-conduct and to persuade the +Pilgrims to come to the meeting on no security but his own word. He was +not authorised to promise a general pardon, as the King in his last +letters[52] had insisted that some of the rebels must be reserved for +punishment[53]. He could indeed satisfy them with regard to (4) as +Richard Cromwell had already withdrawn. But as to (5) he had particular +instructions not to reveal the King’s reply until the rebels had +submitted; and though he was to assure them that it was quite +satisfactory he must have known that this was far from being the case. +As to (6) he had no authority to promise anything but the limited +pardon, while he had been particularly forbidden to give a pledge for +Aske. Though he was permitted to go into particulars, it was only that +he might persuade the Pilgrims not to trouble the King with them, the +one point on which his orders were most emphatic being that he should +take every means to detach the gentlemen from the commons[54]. + +At this point there comes a complete break in the contemporary letters +and reports. No account of these first negotiations at Doncaster +survives. Aske alluded to the meeting once or twice, but always said +that as he was not there he could not be certain of what passed. He +knew, however, that Robert Bowes delivered a copy of the articles to the +Duke. The principal business of the meeting was probably to arrange for +the final conference. It was decided that the appointed three hundred +should come to Doncaster next day, and there choose forty of their +number, twenty gentlemen and twenty commons, to treat with the Duke[55]. +The King’s safe-conduct seems to have been sent, although there is no +absolute statement to that effect, but it does not appear that any +hostage was given for Aske[56]. Perhaps the matter of the safe-conduct +was compromised on those terms. When this had been decided the ten +gentlemen returned to Pontefract. + +However Norfolk may have endeavoured to gloze the matter over, it could +not be denied that the preliminaries had been very discouraging. The +commons realised this, and on Tuesday they were uproarious. They threw +the blame on Archbishop Lee, rightly thinking that his wavering had +encouraged the royalists, and there was another tumult in the church, +where the Archbishop was performing service[57]. In order to prevent a +breach of the truce, it was agreed that Lord Neville, Lord Lumley and +Lord Conyers should remain at Pontefract to control the commons, while +Lord Scrope, Lord Latimer, Lord Darcy and Aske, with the three hundred +knights, esquires, gentlemen and commons, rode to Doncaster[58]. During +these two days the clergy had been drawing up their articles, which were +not completed and accepted until Tuesday afternoon[59], and it must have +been after the close of the short December day that the three hundred +rode across the bridge to the Grey Friars’ house in Doncaster. Next +morning, Wednesday 6 December, they chose ten knights, ten esquires and +twenty commons to go to the conference with Norfolk. Robert Aske was +their leader, and was empowered to speak in the name of all. This being +determined, the forty set out for the house of the White Friars, where +Norfolk and his council were prepared to receive them. By this time the +King’s last instructions must have arrived, which gave Norfolk something +to base the treaty upon. + +When the Pilgrims came into the presence of the council, Aske made three +low obeisances. Then he and all his companions fell on their knees and +humbly begged for the King’s free pardon and gracious favour, +notwithstanding anything which they might have done contrary to the laws +of the land. These respectful preliminaries might have satisfied Henry, +but the subsequent proceedings did not follow the lines which he had +laid down, for without any representation of the King’s grievances they +passed immediately to the discussion of the articles. Here again Norfolk +seems to have disregarded the King’s desire for repeated delays. He had +obtained authority to grant a full and free pardon to all, and to +promise that the King would hold a free parliament; he thought, very +reasonably, that no good would result from disguising the fact, as the +more the negotiations were prolonged the wilder and more suspicious the +commons would become[60]. + +On this basis, therefore, the representatives of the King and of the +Pilgrims argued the particulars of the petition. About the first +article, for the suppression of heresy, no difficulty could be made[61]. +The King was as anxious for this as his subjects, and the arrest of +several heretics had already created a good impression[62]. Norfolk at +this point could use with some effect a passage in the King’s answer to +the men of Yorkshire in which he promised to punish any members of his +council or others, who could be proved to be subverters of the law, and +he would be free to suppress the King’s addition that nobody would be +able to prove such a thing[63]. The King’s circular to the bishops was +well received. In it the bishops were ordered “to commend all the honest +ceremonies of the Church in such wise that they be not contemned,” and +were forbidden to retain in their service any person who spoke of the +ceremonies “contentiously or contemptuously.”[64] They were to watch the +preachers vigilantly, and silence any who were indiscreet, even if they +had the King’s licence, and they were to seek out and apprehend any +priests “who have presumed to marry.” Darcy afterwards forwarded a copy +of this letter to Lee, saying that in it “all true Catholics may +joy.”[65] The rest of the articles dealing with religion might all be +referred to the coming parliament. The royal supremacy, the tenths and +first-fruits, and the rest had all been granted by act of parliament. It +would be highly unconstitutional for the King to annul them merely on +his own authority, but what one parliament had done another could undo. +It seems that the Pilgrims assented to this, in all but one point. They +insisted, however, that the suppressed abbeys must be allowed to stand +until their case had been brought before parliament again. Norfolk had +no power to grant this, but the Pilgrims firmly refused to give it up. + +Leaving that aside for the moment, the other articles may be considered. +With regard to constitutional reforms, the repeal of the various +statutes included under that head might be left to the coming +parliament, and it will be observed that by this device Norfolk would be +able to avoid the discussion of such dangerous topics as the treason +laws and Mary’s legitimacy. Even the punishment of Cromwell, Audley and +Rich might possibly take the form of an impeachment, and here Norfolk’s +obvious sincerity must have helped him. It must have been evident that +he wished for Cromwell’s downfall as much as the Pilgrims did. He would +be able to make the most of the withdrawal of Richard Cromwell, and he +might represent that the King’s eyes had been opened by this +insurrection to Cromwell’s enormities. It was, however, impossible to +defer the consideration of when and where the parliament should meet and +how it should be composed. With regard to the date, Henry had at first +proposed next Michaelmas[66], which was too far distant to satisfy the +Pilgrims, but in the end he left the matter open, which enabled Norfolk +to pretend that a near date would be appointed, while it gratified Henry +to feel that it really rested entirely with him. As to the place, he was +determined to name that himself. The question of additional +representation for Yorkshire and kindred subjects were fully argued at +Doncaster; but no definite promise was made[67]. Finally Norfolk was +able to show them a full and free pardon without exceptions. All the +other grievances, legal and economic, might safely be referred to the +parliament. + +In all this conference it is evident that the greatest importance +attached to Norfolk’s representation of the King’s attitude. If he had +spoken the strict truth, he would have said that Henry was very angry, +that the few concessions which he had made had been forced from him by +sheer necessity, that he was absolutely determined not to yield an inch +more, that in particular he would not give up the monasteries or the +supremacy, and that he was extremely anxious to punish the leaders of +the rising. There is no reason to believe that Norfolk was so tactless +as to reveal any of this. He probably encouraged the Pilgrims’ idea that +Henry had been so far misled by Cromwell and that witch Anne Boleyn that +he did not realise what he had been doing. The Pilgrimage had opened his +eyes, and for this he was grateful. But it would be undignified in him +to grant petitions which were backed by force. Only let the Pilgrims +submit and disperse, and the King, now restored to his right mind, would +do all they desired, if they would proceed by entreaty and +constitutional means. As the Pilgrims regarded Norfolk as almost one of +themselves, his words would have all the more weight. But on the one +point they were still unpersuadable; the monasteries must be allowed to +stand. Norfolk knew perfectly well that the King would never agree to +this, but he had received a significant hint from his master as to how +he should act in these circumstances. In his letter of 2 December Henry +had reminded him: “you said you would esteem no promise you should make +to the rebels nor think your honour touched in the breach of it.”[68] +The implication is clear:—“Why do you trouble me about making +concessions to the rebels? Promise anything they demand for yourself, +but leave me free to repudiate it afterwards.” Finding that there was no +other way of dealing with the problem of the monasteries, Norfolk and +the Pilgrims finally agreed upon a compromise. The abbots must surrender +their houses to the King’s commissioners, but they should then be +restored by the King’s authority until the next parliament, which was to +settle their fate[69]. At the end of the day Aske and his companions +returned to the rest of the three hundred at the Grey Friars with these +terms: a free pardon, the promise of a free parliament, and the +provisional restoration of the abbeys. After laying the proposed treaty +before them, Aske, at Norfolk’s request, rode back to Pontefract the +same night to communicate the terms to the assembly there[70]. + +Meanwhile Norfolk and the rest of his council wrote to the King, stating +the terms they had made, and honestly declaring that they did not +believe there would be any possibility of peace unless the King would +give up the abbeys, at any rate temporarily[71]. + +Early next morning, Thursday 7 December, Aske sent the bellman about +Pontefract to summon the commons to hear the result of the +negotiations[72]. There were about three thousand in all, who gathered +at the market cross, where Aske announced the terms that had been made. +When they heard of the King’s most liberal and free pardon, all raised a +shout of joy. Under the impression that the terms were ratified by +acclamation, Aske set out for Doncaster again, accompanied by Lord +Neville. As soon as they reached the town they went again to Norfolk, +but while Aske was declaring the result of his mission a letter came +from Lord Lumley, who was in command at Pontefract, to warn them that +affairs there had changed for the worse. Now that they had had time to +discuss the terms, the commons were not so well pleased with them, and +the leaders of their own rank, such as Hallam and Pulleyn, who were +always suspicious of the gentlemen, were encouraging them to give the +alarm and raise all Yorkshire again, if they were not shown the King’s +pardon under seal, and if the lords would not agree to the continuance +of religious houses and promise that the parliament should be held at +York. This news plunged the negotiations into confusion again. After +some debate, Aske suggested that he should return to Pontefract and lay +the proceedings before the commons once more. His offer was accepted. +When he arrived at Pontefract his eloquence was effective and by night +he had persuaded everyone that the terms were perfectly +satisfactory[73]. To complete the work he sent back to Doncaster a +request that Lancaster Herald would bring the King’s pardon. Norfolk +wrote gleefully to Suffolk that all was going well at Pontefract[74]. +The herald arrived with the pardon the same night[75]. Possibly he was +accompanied by the three hundred lords and gentlemen, for next day, +Friday 8 December, they all assembled on St Thomas’ Hill and heard the +pardon read. Then the commons dispersed to their houses, and the +gentlemen rode to Doncaster once more. When they again presented +themselves before Norfolk, Aske gave an account of all that had +happened, and Norfolk then proceeded to rehearse the King’s grievances, +which in Henry’s opinion ought to have come first. Norfolk required to +know how the King’s rents were to be collected, to which it was replied +that they were ready for him. He also demanded the restoration of Edward +Waters and his ship. The Pilgrims were prepared to redeliver everything +that had been taken except the money, which had been divided among the +captors. Several other small points were similarly adjusted. After this +Aske knelt down and humbly besought the whole assembly that he should no +longer hold the office or be called by the name of captain. When they +had assented to this he tore off the badge of the Five Wounds which he +was wearing, and all the other Pilgrims did the same, crying “We will +all wear no badge nor sign but the badge of our sovereign lord.” Finally +Norfolk gave orders for the restoration of the grantees of the +monasteries, and the conference broke up[76]. + +It is an interesting point to consider whether the Pilgrims believed +that the prisoners in Lincolnshire would be included in this pardon. +They had so far prevented any executions from taking place there, but +although they probably hoped that they might be able to obtain mercy for +the Lincolnshire men the Pilgrims were not in a position to treat on +their behalf. They had deserted Yorkshire and made terms for themselves; +now they must abide by these. Darcy, however, made a daring effort for +them. On 15 December he wrote to Suffolk that he would not allow Waters’ +ship to be delivered unless the appointment at Doncaster was observed in +Lincolnshire, and his intervention had the effect of preventing any +executions for the time[77]. + +The end of the second conference at Doncaster is the end of the +Pilgrims’ success. They had allowed the issue to be changed from a trial +of strength to a trial of diplomacy, and though Henry might have been +overcome by force, he had not his match as a diplomat. The leaders, who +were on the whole rather old-fashioned and simple-minded, were baffled +without the slightest difficulty and Henry’s triumph was almost +ridiculously easy and complete. + +There is one peculiarity of the conference at Doncaster which strikes +the modern reader instantly, namely, that the terms do not appear to +have been written down. It was later a part of Henry’s plan of action to +slur over the second conference as much as possible. Not a single +interrogation about it was addressed to any of the prisoners, and the +only information on the subject is derived from a few chance remarks, +and from the brief account which Aske drew up for the King while he +still believed that the terms would be observed. In these references +there is absolutely nothing to show that the Pilgrims either signed any +document themselves, or demanded any written copy of the terms from +Norfolk. Henry had suggested that the leaders of the Pilgrimage should +be required to sign a document pledging themselves to demand nothing +from the King except a free pardon and a free parliament, but it seems +that this paper was never drawn up. + +The omission was not quite so surprising at that date as it would be +now, for Yorkshire gentlemen were still accustomed to transact most of +their business by word of mouth, and writing was unfamiliar to their +ideas. But Darcy and Aske must have known how important it was to have +the King’s terms in black and white. We can only conclude that the +absence of a written agreement was due to Norfolk’s skill and prudence. +It seems to have been agreed on both sides that the terms were only +provisional. Norfolk might explain that he would go and represent to the +King what he had promised and what the Pilgrims had demanded, and that +he would bring back the King’s answer in full legal form under the Great +Seal. That would be the real treaty. Until that was drawn up there was +no need for writing. It will be shown in the next chapter that Norfolk’s +speedy return with the King’s confirmation of the terms was fully +expected by gentlemen and commons alike, and that his delay produced +fresh agitation. At present the only one of the King’s concessions which +the Pilgrims actually saw in writing was the pardon. They did not see +the promise of the parliament, which the King offered to concede in his +instructions to Norfolk; neither did they see any written promise +concerning the monasteries, for which Norfolk had no authority. + +The only report of the proceedings at the time occurs in a letter to +Lady Lisle, wife of the Governor of Calais, from her agent in England, +John Husee. With the delightful inconsequence of a contemporary he +writes “news has just come that the Northern men have obeyed the King’s +proclamation, and submitted to mercy. The wine and herrings are come, +and will be delivered to Mr Sulyard.”[78] This, it will be observed, was +the report circulated in London by the King on Monday 11 December. +Needless to say, it was not true. The northern men had not submitted to +mercy, but had made terms. The difficulty lies in discovering what those +terms were. In order that the narrative should not be interrupted, we +have stated above as an actual fact the terms which we believe were +made, but it is now necessary to give the grounds for this belief. There +is no doubt about the pardon and the parliament. The problem lies in the +agreement as to the monasteries. About this the evidence is conflicting. +In the first place, on Wednesday night, when Aske returned to Pontefract +to communicate the terms to the commons, Norfolk wrote to the King that +it would not be possible “to appease the commons unless the King +consented to the standing of the abbeys in those parts which are to be +suppressed by act of parliament.”[79] This looks as though he had made +some provisional promise, which he was trying to persuade the King to +ratify, but unfortunately his letter has not been preserved. The +quotation is from the King’s reply. Before Norfolk’s return to the +north, “the King examined him in the gallery of his opinion in causes of +religion,” and Norfolk promised that no default should be found in him, +“in the suppression of the Abbeys and treatment of the traitors +therein.”[80] There would have been no reason for the King to examine +Norfolk if he had not made some unwelcome concession on the subject, +which he repudiated “in the gallery” before the King. + +Secondly, there is Aske’s narrative drawn up for the King. In this +account he described only his individual acts; as the progress of the +negotiations must have been reported to the King by Norfolk, Aske says +hardly anything about them[81]. + +His statements are (_a_) that on Thursday morning he proclaimed at the +market cross at Pontefract “the said order (taken at Doncaster) and ... +the knowledge of the King’s most liberal and free pardon.” The commons +received the news joyfully. + +(_b_) After he had set out for Doncaster again the commons became +dissatisfied and demanded to see the King’s pardon and also “that the +abbots, new put in of houses suppressed, should not avoid their +possession to (until) the parliament time,” and that the parliament must +be at York. + +(_c_) When the news of this reached Doncaster, Aske, after consulting +with Norfolk, went back to Pontefract and persuaded the commons “to +abide the said order at Doncaster.”[82] He seems to have had a good deal +of difficulty, for Marmaduke Nevill reported that the commons were so +much excited that the gentlemen thought “we should be fain to divide, +calling all them that were disposed to take the King’s most gracious +pardon to come to a side.”[83] This may mean that they thought of +putting the treaty to the vote. In the end on Friday morning all +formally accepted the terms[84]. + +(_d_) The last business transacted by Norfolk on Friday was to “take +order for the putting in of the King’s farmers.”[85] + +(_e_) After the conference Aske took part with Sir Ralph Ellerker and +Sir Robert Constable in “the putting in of the King’s farmers into the +abbeys of Haltemprice and Feriby.”[86] + +In all this there is no definite statement of what was the order taken +at Doncaster, but the general impression which the narrative gives is +that the monks were to be turned out and the farmers restored. The third +witness in the matter is John Dakyn, and he makes a definite statement, +the only definite statement, be it observed, that exists. Dakyn, it will +be remembered, was one of the ecclesiastics at Pontefract. He was an +elderly, cautious man, very anxious to avoid committing himself. During +the conference William Collins, the bailiff and one of the +representatives of Kendal[87], came to him and asked his advice +concerning the monastery of Cartmell. All the monks had been restored by +the commons, but the prior would not go back[88]. Dakyn promised to +write to him on the subject. On Saturday 9 December, after the +conference was over, Dakyn left Pontefract for York. He did not write to +Cartmell as yet, because he wished to have definite information as to +what had been determined. As he had been at Pontefract all the time, he +might have been expected to know, but probably he had had no opportunity +of learning the details from any of the leaders and he wanted to be +quite certain. Collins came to him at York for the letter, and Dakyn, +having no real doubt on the subject, wrote on Sunday 10 December to the +priors of Cartmell and Conishead[89] that by the King’s consent all +religious persons should re-enter suppressed houses again till further +direction was taken by parliament[90]. Collins sent these letters to the +monasteries[91]. Dakyn went home to his own parish of Kirkby +Ravensworth[92]. Within a week of his arrival Robert Bowes and Sir Henry +Gascoigne requested him to go and explain to the canons of St Agatha’s +at Richmond that they must “be put forth by the King’s authority and +taken in again by the same authority until the next parliament.” The +prior agreed and it was done. “This manner of putting out and taking in +again was commonly spoken of to be true, after our return from +Pontefract, in all those parts as well with gentlemen as others.”[93] +Robert Bowes was one of the principal men at Doncaster, and must +certainly have known all that passed, and Dakyn’s evidence shows +decisively that he believed that the monasteries were to make a formal +surrender, but were to be allowed to stand. + +In the fourth place there is the evidence of William Collins. +Clarencieux King-of-Arms arrived at Kendal on 22 December, bringing the +King’s pardon. The farmers of the priory of Cartmell and the restored +monks were quarrelling over the rents and corn, and when they heard of +the herald’s arrival two of the monks came to him and begged him to +write an order for them. The herald would not write himself, but he +directed Collins to write, which he did, in the herald’s presence, to +the following effect: “Neighbours of Cartmell, so it is that the King’s +herald hath made proclamation here that every man, pain of high treason, +should suffer everything, as farms, tithes, and such other, to be in +like stay and order concerning possessions as they were in time of the +last meeting at Doncaster, except ye will of your charity help the +brethren there somewhat towards their boards, till my lord of Norfolk +come again and take further order therein.”[94] All the monasteries of +the north had been restored before the last conference at Doncaster, and +putting together Dakyn’s and Collins’ statements it appears that the +monks were to be left unmolested, but that the rents, etc., were to +remain in the hands of the farmers and grantees of the monasteries, who +should, however, make an allowance to the monks. + +Finally it appears that as soon as he returned home Sir Thomas Hilton, +who, like Bowes, had been prominent at Doncaster, insisted on restoring +the Friars Observant of Newcastle[95]. + +From the evidence of all these persons, the majority of them being men +who had every opportunity of knowing the truth, it seems certain that +Norfolk promised at Doncaster that the monasteries should be allowed to +stand, subject to an agreement with the farmers of them, until the +promised parliament met. + +Norfolk had no authority for making any such promise, and in the absence +of any proof of his actual words, it is not fair to accuse him of +treachery. It is not likely that he pretended to have the power which he +did not possess. In all probability he only promised to make suit to the +King that the monasteries should stand, although he may have held out +strong hopes that the King would grant his suit, while he knew very well +that the King would do nothing of the sort. + +The first news of the terms made Henry exceedingly angry[96]. A letter +was at once drawn up addressed to Fitzwilliam and Russell, in which he +scolded them roundly. He was amazed that they could not achieve the +thing that the King most desired, namely, the reservation of certain +persons for punishment. As for the monasteries, so long as he wore the +crown of England he would never give them up. Various persons from the +north had been interrogated by the King[97], in particular Steward, the +Scot of whom Norfolk had given warning[98], and they all reported that +the commons of the north were weary of the rebellion, penitent and ready +to submit unconditionally. He would have been a brave man who dared to +say otherwise, when face to face with Henry. The King desired Russell +and Fitzwilliam to send a detailed account of all the negotiations. It +is very much to be wished that they had done so, but in all probability +the King’s letter was never sent. It is undated and endorsed by +Wriothesley “The minute that was devised to have been sent to my lord +Admiral and Master Russell,” which implies that it never was +despatched[99]. When it was drawn up Henry must have expected that the +negotiations would last at least a week, as he had suggested in his +instructions. The minute cannot have been written before 8 December, as +it alludes to a letter from Norfolk to Suffolk dated Thursday 7 December +and forwarded to the King[100]. The despatch of the King’s letter may +have been prevented by further letters from Doncaster, announcing that +the conference was over, or it may be simply that the King had changed +his mind. As soon as his first outburst of rage was over, he must have +become aware of the great advantage which he had gained. He had been +thwarted for the moment, which his passionate self-will could hardly +bear, but cunning was really more in accordance with his tastes than +violence. A very little reflection would show him that it only required +time, patience and diplomacy for him to recover everything that he had +yielded for the moment, and to recover it, moreover, without the risk +and expense of war. Therefore his angry letter was cancelled, and the +King gave no sign as to his opinion of the terms made at Doncaster. He +did not ratify them, but on the other hand he did not repudiate them. +One of the heralds who was sent to the north with the pardons, as we +have seen, encouraged the people to believe that the monks were to +remain in their houses for the present. It is here that a charge of +treachery will fairly lie. Henry had no intention of keeping the +unauthorised promise which Norfolk as his representative had made, but +he did not repudiate it. He permitted and encouraged those whom it most +concerned to believe that he regarded the promise as binding, until he +found a favourable opportunity for denying it altogether, and punishing +those who had trusted him. + +NOTES TO CHAPTER XV + + Note A. In the Letters and Papers this passage runs “if we shall trust + either to treat or do, we shall be deceived,” but in the State Papers + it is printed “either to Trent or to Don” and a reference to the + original shows this to be correct. + + Note B. These instructions are undated and are printed among the + letters of 2 December[101]. They seem, however, to belong to 4 + December. Possibly they were first drawn up on the 2nd but held back + and modified after Norfolk’s letter from Welbeck was received. + + Note C. Henry attached great importance to the point that there should + be no diversity of handwriting in the pardons and safe-conducts; the + reason for this anxiety is not apparent. + + Note D. The question of the hostages aroused a great deal of interest + at the time. The Spanish Chronicler says[102] that the King sent as + hostages for Aske the Earl of Surrey, Lord Darcy, the Earl of Rutland, + Lord William Howard Norfolk’s brother, the Marquis of Exeter and Lord + Thomas Howard Norfolk’s second son. This account of the insurrection + is interesting as showing the rumours current in London, but it is + quite without authority as evidence of what occurred. + + Note E. This date is written and then cancelled. In his letter to + Suffolk[103] the King mentions Michaelmas as the date of the + parliament, but in the end the date was left open. + + + + + CHAPTER XVI + THE KING’S POLICY + + +After the conference at Doncaster had concluded on Saturday 9 December +1536 there was a general dispersal of the gentlemen and nobles who had +been together for so long. The commons had already gone home, rather +disappointed that there had been no fighting, and half-suspicious that +they had been betrayed after all. Norfolk and his colleagues set off for +London to make their report to the King[104]. Shrewsbury returned to +Sheffield to keep an eye on the disaffected region[105]. Suffolk, who +had been petitioning for some time to be recalled to court, dismissed +all his men but five hundred to guard the ordnance and prisoners, and +went up to London[106]. The northern gentlemen departed to their homes, +where they endeavoured to keep order and to adjust the disputes between +the monks and the farmers of the monasteries. + +Some of the gentlemen, however, went south with Norfolk. Marmaduke +Nevill[107] asked the Duke’s leave before starting, and was told that no +leave was required[108]. These gentlemen rode south in great spirits, +telling everybody that they had obtained a pardon and a parliament, and +that they had set up all the abbeys again in their country. In the +parliament the pardon would be confirmed and the Act of Uses repealed, +for younger brothers would not have it. Marmaduke Nevill visited the +Abbot of St John’s at Colchester on Saturday 16 December. The justices +of the peace were dining there, and one of them asked, “How do the +traitors of the north?” Nevill retorted with a catch phrase of the time, +“No traitors, for if ye call us traitors, we will call you heretics.” He +said that the answer of the King’s Council had been known at Pontefract +before Norfolk declared it at Doncaster, and that all the south had been +with the plain fellows of the north, but dared not speak their +minds[109]. His boasting was quickly put to silence. The justices +reported his words to Cromwell and on Twelfth Day [6 January 1536–7] he +was arrested by the Earl of Oxford and thrown into the Tower[110]. His +name is still to be seen there, the first of many such sorrowful +memorials which were to find place on its walls in the next few months, +but his fate is unknown. + +On receiving a full account of the conference at Doncaster, the King’s +first care was to conceal the fact that he had received a check. A +report spread that the northern men had submitted unconditionally[111]. +On Friday 22 December the King, accompanied by the Queen and the +Imperial Ambassador, made a magnificent progress through London to +Greenwich, where he intended to keep a particularly festive Christmas. +“Such a sight has not been seen since the Emperor was here. The streets +were hanged with arras and cloth of gold. Priests in their copes with +crosses and censers stood on one side, and the citizens on the other. It +rejoiced every man wondrously.”[112] The weather was so severe that the +Thames was frozen, and the procession went down to Greenwich on the +ice[113]. The King’s daughters had preceded him and were already +established there[114]. + +Cromwell wrote to the English ambassadors in France on 24 December that +it was false that the nobles had been forced to come to terms with the +northern men because they distrusted their own levies. The King’s +soldiers were entirely loyal. The King had consented to treat with the +rebels only because of his merciful disposition and kindly wish to avoid +bloodshed. The rebellion was now completely at an end. It was true that +the rebels had at first attempted to make conditions, but finally “they +submitted entirely to the King’s pleasure with the greatest +repentance.”[115] On Christmas Eve Latimer preached at Paul’s Cross, +“moving to unity without any special note of any man’s folly.”[116] + +When he came to review the situation, Henry found that it was not very +bad, but required caution. With regard to the monasteries, he did not +consider himself as bound in any way, but he wished to create a good +impression. Since March 1536, when the act for the suppression was +passed, exemptions from its operation had been granted from time to +time. From June to December 1536 eighteen monasteries had been permitted +to stand, the greatest number exempted in any one month being six in +August. It must be due to something more than a coincidence that in +January 1536–7 the number of exemptions was seventeen[117], only one +less than the total previously exempted in the course of seven months. +There is an undated list of 123 monasteries which were to be allowed to +stand. Of these twenty-four are in Yorkshire, twenty-four in +Lincolnshire, and not more than six in any other one county[118]. So +great was the uncertainty as to the King’s real intentions with regard +to the monasteries that in Norfolk and Somerset the commissioners for +the suppression suspended their work until they received further +orders[119]. + +Although he was angry at being forced to make a definite promise, Henry +had no objection to holding a parliament. It was characteristic of him +that he was not in the least afraid of his parliaments, and never +doubted that he could do anything he liked with them. In this case he +was prepared to be even better than his word, for though he had not +promised to do so, he intended to hold the parliament at York[120]. + +After Norfolk’s report had been laid before the King, a minute was drawn +up, containing suggestions for the settlement of the north. It is +undated, but probably belongs to the last days of 1536. There was every +intention of holding a parliament in the north, but as “there remain +persons who desire, either by Parliament or else by another rebellion, +to compass a change from their present state ... means ought therefore +to be devised for the maintenance of perfect quiet in the future.” When +the King went north, loyal noblemen must be put in authority to keep the +southern counties in order, especially in certain counties where there +was much disaffection[121]. A mass of treasure must be raised, “as money +is necessary for the enterprises of princes and adds heart and courage +in danger to all men.” Garrisons must be planted in the disaffected +regions, but “so ordered as not to offend the people.” The King’s +ordnance must be reviewed and properly bestowed, and a supply of weapons +of all sorts must be laid in[122]. These were not very encouraging +preparations for holding a free parliament where every man should speak +his mind openly, though of course the King was justified in taking +precautions for his own safety and he can hardly be blamed for trusting +the north less than he pretended. + +Henry soon hit upon a very ingenious scheme for introducing a sufficient +force into the north without exciting suspicion. He had originally +intended that Queen Jane should be crowned at Westminster on the Sunday +before the feast of All Hallows 1536, but when the day came round the +northern rebellion was at an acute stage, and the King had neither money +nor men to waste over pageants. A convenient excuse for postponing the +coronation was supplied by the prevalence of the plague in London during +the autumn[123]. At Christmas, however, the King’s policy was to make a +lavish display of splendour and security, and he allowed it to be known +that not only would he himself travel to York to hold his parliament, +but the Queen would accompany him to be crowned in York minster[124]. No +one could object to such an honour being conferred upon the city of +York, while at the same time it gave a good excuse for extensive +military preparations, and for filling the city with the King’s own men. + +The only one of the concessions made at Doncaster which Henry could not +tolerate was the general pardon. The rising had been a stain upon his +honour which blood must cleanse. He had brought himself to consent to +certain limitations; he would be content with a specified number of +victims, and that number should be a small one; if he could not have the +leaders, he would be satisfied with vile persons; but executions there +must be, and he would not feel he had done his duty as a king until +someone had suffered. + +His council advised that he should allure the northern gentlemen into +obedience by affability, and thereby “by little and little find out the +root of this matter”; also that those whose goods had been spoiled +should be encouraged to prosecute the robbers, “whereby some offenders +may yet be punished, and the beginners of the rebellion detected.”[125] +In the meanwhile there was no help for the general pardon, and the +heralds were accordingly sent out to proclaim it. + +An inclusive pardon for all the rebellious districts, provided that the +inhabitants made submission to the Duke of Norfolk or the Earl of +Shrewsbury, was issued on 9 December, and an order was given for +separate pardons to be granted to applicants from the various +counties[126]. Suffolk had already received the pardon for Hull, +Marshland, Howden, Holderness, Beverley and the East Riding[127]. It was +at first proposed that Thomas Hawley, Clarencieux King-of-Arms, should +carry the pardon to the North Riding, Richmond, Durham and +Northumberland, while Thomas Miller, Lancaster Herald, should take it to +the West Riding, Lancashire, Westmorland and Cumberland. But as the +former was considered the more dangerous mission, it was finally +assigned to Lancaster Herald, who had acquitted himself so well before +among the rebels. This was a slight which Clarencieux King-of-Arms never +forgave[128], and the effect of his resentment will be apparent +later[129]. + +Clarencieux King-of-Arms proclaimed the pardon at Wakefield on +Tuesday[130] 12 December, at Halifax on Wednesday 13 December, at +Bradford on Thursday 14th, at Leeds on Friday 15th, at Skipton on +Saturday 16th, at Kendal on Tuesday 19th. His doings at Kendal have +already been described. He was at Appleby on Wednesday 20 December, at +Penrith on Thursday 21st, at Carlisle on Saturday 23rd, and Cockermouth +on Tuesday 26th, and at Lancaster on Sunday 31st, whence he sent back +his report[131]. + +Lancaster Herald wrote from Berwick on Tuesday 26 December that he had +proclaimed the pardon at York, Ripon, Middleham, Barnard Castle, +Richmond, Durham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Morpeth, Alnwick and Berwick. He +found the commons everywhere very repentant and eager for the coming of +the Duke of Norfolk, but the spiritualty were most corrupted and +malicious, and the originators of all the mischief[132]. + +It was no wonder that the spiritualty were offended by the pardon, which +ran as follows: + + “Albeit that you the King’s Highness’ subjects and commons dwelling + and inhabiting in the shires of York, Cumberland, Westmorland, + Northumberland, the Bishopric of Durham, the city of York and the + shire of the same, the town of Kingston-upon-Hull and the shire of the + same, the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the shire of the same, and + in other shires, towns, dales, places privileged, the franchises and + liberties within the limits of the said shires, cities, towns, or any + of them or being reputed or taken for any part, parcel or number of + any of them and such other the King’s said subjects inhabited in the + town of Lancaster or elsewhere by north in the shire of Lancaster have + now of late attempted and committed a manifest and open rebellion + against his most royal majesty, whereby was like to have ensued the + utter ruin and destruction of these whole countries, to the great + comfort and advancement of your ancient enemies the Scots, which as + his Highness is credibly informed do with a great readiness watch upon + the same, and to the high displeasure of God, Who straitly commandeth + you to obey your sovereign lord and king in all things and not with + violence to resist his will or commandment for any cause whatsoever it + be: Nevertheless the King’s royal majesty perceiving as well by the + articles of your pretences sent to his Highness as also duly informed + by credible reports your said offences proceeded of ignorance and by + occasion of sundry false tales never minded or intended by his + Highness or any of his council but most craftily contrived and most + spitefully set abroad amongst you by certain malicious and perverse + persons, and thereupon his Highness inclined to extend his most + gracious pity and mercy towards you, having the chief charge of you + under God both of your souls and bodies, and desiring rather the + preservation of the same and your reconciliation by his merciful means + than by the order and rigour of justice to punish you according to + your demerits, of his inestimable goodness, benignance, mercy, and + pity, and at your most humble petitions and submissions made unto his + Highness, he is contented and pleased to give and grant and by this + present proclamation doth give and grant unto you all and to all and + every your confederates wheresoever they dwell, of whatsoever estate, + degree, or condition so ever you or they be, or by what name or names + so ever they or you be or may be called, his general and free pardon + for all manner treason, rebellions, insurrections, misprisions of + treason, murders, robberies, felons, and of all accessories of the + same and of every of them, unlawful assemblies, unlawful conventicles, + unlawful speaking of words, confederacies, riots, routs, and all other + trespasses, offences and contempts done and committed by you or any of + you against the King’s Majesty, his crown or dignity royal, within and + from the time of the beginning of the said rebellion whensoever it was + unto the present day of proclaiming of this proclamation, and of all + pains, judgments, executions of death and all other penalties, + forfeitures, fines and forfeitures of lands, tenements, hereditaments, + goods or chattels, by any of your forfeitures incurred by reason of + the premisses or any of them; which fines, forfeitures, lands, + tenements, hereditaments, goods and chattels, the King’s said Highness + of his special grace and mere motion by these presents giveth to such + of you as have or should have forfeited or lost the same by occasion + of the premisses or any of them: And also his Highness is pleased and + contented that you and every of you from time to time shall and may + have upon your suits to be made hereafter in his Chancery his said + most gracious and free pardon under his Great Seal concerning the + premisses, without any further bill or warrant to be obtained for the + same, and without paying any thing for the Great Seal thereof: And + that you and every of you, from time to time, may freely and liberally + sue for his said pardon when and as often as it shall like you, + without any trouble, vexation or impeachment for the premisses or any + of them by his heirs or by any his officiaries, ministers, or + subjects, by any manner of means or in any manner of wise. Provided + always that you and every of you in token of a perfect declaration and + knowledge that ye do heartily lament and be sorry for your said + offences, shall make your humble submission unto his Highness in the + presence of his right trusty and right entirely beloved cousins and + councillors the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Shrewsbury, his + Lieutenants General, or any of them, or to their deputy or deputies of + them, or any of them, or such other person or persons as the King’s + Highness shall appoint for the same: Furthermore, the King’s most + royal Majesty straitly chargeth and commandeth that you and every of + you shall from henceforth like true and faithful subjects use + yourselves, in God’s peace and his, according to the duties of + allegiance, and that you shall in no wise hereafter attempt to make or + procure any such rebellion, intent, unlawful assemblies, riots, routs + and conspirations, nor at the commandment nor by the authority of any + person of what estate or degree or for what cause so ever it be, shall + arise in any forcible manner and array, unless it be at the special + commandment of the King’s Highness or his Lieutenant sufficiently + authorised for the same. + + In witness whereof the King’s most royal Majesty hath caused this his + proclamation to be made patent and sealed with his Great Seal at + Richmond the IX day of December in the XXVIII year of his reign.”[133] + +Henry was so much accustomed to scolding his subjects and praising +himself in his public documents that the pardon would appear, to those +who were used to his ways, to be rather a moderate production, but it +was very aggravating to the independent spirit of the northern men, and +in addition to its irritating tone there were special points in it which +must have been deliberately provocative. The King referred once more to +the “false tales” as the causes of the insurrection, in spite of the +Pilgrims’ repeated endeavours to set him right on that point. He +insisted that he had “the chief charge of you under God, both of your +souls and bodies,” although that was the main point at issue. Finally +the proclamation was not an actual pardon, but merely the promise of a +pardon when each individual Pilgrim had first made his submission to the +King’s lieutenants, who had not yet even set out for the north, and had +secondly sued out his private pardon in Chancery. It is difficult to +know how far this phraseology is to be taken literally. The King cannot +have expected all the inhabitants of the north to make a journey up to +London for their private pardons. For the greater number the +proclamation would have to be sufficient; but its wording was so vague +as to throw a disagreeable doubt upon its validity. Consequently while +the King thought the pardon far too liberal, the commons were by no +means satisfied with it. Lancaster Herald did not dare to read the +proclamation as it stood at Durham. He was reported to have read the +pardon one way in the city of Durham and another way in the loyal town +of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. When this was known in Durham the citizens were +so angry that they attacked the Herald on his return, and he had great +difficulty in escaping from them[134]. + +On Sunday 31 December the parishioners of Kendal declared that the +priest must bid the beads in the old way, praying for the Pope and the +cardinals. Collins brought the King’s pardon to show them, and Bricket, +one of the King’s servants, warned them that if they were to enjoy the +pardon they must keep the peace, but they cried, “Down, carle, thou art +false to the commons,” and one of them, William Harrison, declared that +he cared for no pardons. Collins was obliged to retreat, and left the +pardons in the vestry. Parson Layborne persuaded the congregation to let +the priest bid the beads as he would until the coming of the Duke of +Norfolk. Collins summoned two justices of the peace to punish the +ringleaders, but one magistrate was out of the country, and the other +could only do his best with words[135]. + +In the East Riding the pardon was also received grudgingly. Hallam said +that they had liever have had some of their petitions granted[136]. + +The division between the commons and the gentlemen became greater, +because the gentlemen based their hopes on the coming parliament, but +the commons, having no concern in the parliament, did not feel much +interest in it. They did not care about the constitutional point, and +wanted the King to reverse the statutes which they disliked on his own +authority. All were united, however, in an eager expectation of the Duke +of Norfolk’s coming. In spite of their experience in the case of +Ellerker and Bowes, they still hoped that he would come very soon, +perhaps immediately after Christmas, to bring the King’s reply to their +petitions and to announce the date and place of the new parliament[137]. +But now that Norfolk had returned to court, he was in no hurry to set +out again, and Henry was in no hurry to despatch him. The King had begun +a very difficult game. Nothing would suit him better than a slight +rising among the commons, one which could easily be suppressed and yet +would give him an excuse for repudiating the terms granted at Doncaster. +Yet if he went too far, and allowed distrust to grow too rapidly, the +next rising might be as formidable as the last had been, and in that +case it would be much less easily suppressed. Henry quickly discovered +the solution of the problem. The lower classes without leaders were not +formidable. The insurrections which they raised by themselves collapsed +at the first opposition. The King’s plan, therefore, was to detach the +gentlemen, to win them over to his side, if possible, or at any rate to +entertain them with hope and fair words until the commons were provoked +into calling them traitors and rose without them. + +The best opportunity for this policy was immediately after the +conference at Doncaster, as from 9 December until the beginning of +January, in spite of some grumbling and rioting, the north was fairly +quiet in the expectation of the Duke’s coming. But the departure of the +gentlemen who travelled south to sue their pardons alarmed the commons +and caused rumours and threats of a new rising[138]. + +On Friday 15 December Henry made his most skilful move. Peter Mewtas, a +gentleman of the Privy Chamber, was despatched to Robert Aske, with a +letter from the King. Henry wrote that, as he had granted a free pardon +to Aske, he had conceived a great desire to speak with him, and +therefore summoned him to come up to court, where he trusted that by +frankness Aske would deserve reward. A safe-conduct was enclosed, from +the date until Twelfth Day, 6 January 1536–7. Aske was instructed not to +inform anyone of the summons[139]. The King’s object in enjoining that +the visit to court must be secret was to inspire the other leaders of +rebellion with fear and suspicion of Aske. If he disappeared from the +north and was next heard of in London, everyone would conclude that he +had gone up to turn King’s evidence. His credit would be destroyed, and +the other gentlemen, trembling for their lives, might be induced to turn +traitors in fact. Simple-minded as he was, Aske was not quite so foolish +as to fall into this trap. He had been living in his old home at Aughton +since the conference at Doncaster[140], and did not receive the King’s +messenger until after 18 December[141], for travelling must have been +slow in that bitter winter. When the letter arrived Aske sent his +brother-in-law William Monketon to Lord Darcy with a copy of it, and a +message that he intended to go, and that he begged Darcy to keep the +country in order while he was away. After despatching the messenger he +set out for London, accompanied by six servants, without waiting for an +answer from Darcy. When Aske returned to the North, Monketon told him +that Darcy said “he did well to venture, seeing that he had the King’s +letter therefor.”[142] Darcy was afterwards accused of having counselled +Aske to take six servants and to leave one at Lincoln, another at +Huntingdon, another at Ware, and to lodge the rest in different parts of +London, so that if the King attempted any treachery they might bring +back news to Darcy, who would come to his rescue[143]. Aske never +received any such message[144], and the story in its elaborated form +must be untrue[145], but it sounds as if it might have had some +foundation in Darcy’s impetuous form of humour. If Monketon hinted that +he feared Aske was really on his way to the Tower, Darcy may have +exclaimed, “If he is in any doubt, let him lay posts along the road to +bring me early news, and I will come and fetch him out myself,”—or words +to that effect. He might easily make a hasty remark of that nature, +without the smallest idea that anyone would take it seriously, but +Henry, like all despots, was extremely suspicious of a joke. Without any +such precautions, therefore, Aske rode up to London about Christmas +time. + +Henry summoned Sir Thomas Wharton to court, but he excused himself[146]. +Bishop Tunstall, who was still at Norham, was also summoned. The letter, +despatched on 24 December, did not reach him until 4 January, and he +replied that he dared not attempt the journey through the disaffected +region[147]. Sir George Darcy and Sir Nicholas Fairfax went up on their +own account at Christmas, the former carrying messages from the Earl of +Northumberland[148]. Archdeacon Magnus, who had been with Archbishop Lee +since the beginning of the rising, went to the Earl of Shrewsbury and +thence to London as early as 13 December[149]. Sir Oswald Wolsthrope and +Sir Ralph Ellerker had gone up to London, as well as Sir Ralph Evers, +who held Scarborough so long[150]; Lord Latimer set out, but was turned +back by an order from the King[151]. + +The news that so many had gone up to court gave rise to rumours. The +commons said that the only object of the conference at Doncaster and the +“counselling above” was to betray them, and that they would trust the +gentlemen no more[152]. This was the result which the King wished to +obtain, and he took no trouble to conciliate the lower ranks of the +Pilgrims. + +His Council had determined that a mass of treasure must be accumulated. +To achieve this, the King’s rents and taxes must be collected[153]. The +collection was not contrary to the agreement at Doncaster. The gentlemen +had declared there, perhaps over hastily, that the King’s money was +ready for his Highness[154]. But considering the state of the country it +would have been wiser to defer the collection for a time, if the King’s +object had really been peace. The servants of John Gostwick, the +treasurer of the tenths and first fruits, went north to collect the +King’s rents immediately after the conference at Doncaster[155]. They +were accompanied by Sir George Lawson the treasurer of Berwick, who had +himself been involved in the rebellion[156]. At Templehurst, Doncaster, +Wakefield, and Sheriffhutton the rents were paid quietly, but as the +King’s servants went further north they began to encounter +opposition[157]. On Christmas Eve Lawson reported to Gostwick from +Barnard Castle that it was impossible to induce anyone to pay at present +in those parts. They all said that they had been ruined by the late +disturbances. At Barnard Castle the tenants had demanded respite until +twenty days after Christmas, and at Bishop Middleham until a week before +Candlemas (2 February), and he could make no better terms. He himself +and some other friends were advancing the money to pay the garrison at +Berwick, whither he was going, while Gostwick’s servants were returning +to Lawson’s house at York to wait until the appointed time for the new +collection[158]. One of the servants, Thomas Ley, wrote to Gostwick from +York, confirming Lawson’s report. He added that at Middleham Lord +Conyers had rather hindered than helped them[159]. Lawson on the +contrary said that Lord Conyers had done his best for them[160]. + +The tenth from the clergy fell due at Christmas. The thought of it had +been weighing on Archbishop Lee’s mind for some time; he requested that +Norfolk should be consulted about it at Doncaster[161]. About 31 +December he received orders from the King that the tenth must be +collected. As Lee felt sure that this would create disturbances he wrote +on 5 January 1536–7 to consult Darcy[162], who advised him to lay the +matter before Shrewsbury. Darcy warned Shrewsbury on 7 January that it +would be very dangerous to levy the tenth north of Doncaster and begged +him to make the King understand this[163]. Shrewsbury forwarded the +letters to Henry on 9 January, with his own advice that the collection +should be foreborne for the time[164], but he wrote to Lee on the same +day that he dared not counsel him to delay, as he had had express +commands to begin it, and if the King changed his mind he would soon be +informed[165]. Henry’s reply was to have been a peremptory order to +carry on the collection; but though there is an undated draft of it, the +order was probably never sent, as before it could be despatched the +situation had changed[166]. + +Other measures were taken which increased the irritation of the lower +classes. Preachers were sent to the north to expound the King’s +orthodoxy and to represent the enormity of rebellion to their +congregations, and tracts on the same subjects were circulated[167]. The +King’s reply to the first five articles[168] was printed and sent to the +north. This step may have been due partly to the King’s natural +partiality for his own writing, partly to a deliberate intention of +exasperating the people. The reply was extremely provocative. Even at +the present day the reader of it longs to argue with the King. The +Council had seen how unsuitable it was for publication when it was first +written, and with great difficulty had persuaded the King to withhold +it. When it was at length issued, the effect was even more aggravating +than it would originally have been, for the circumstances in which the +reply had been drawn up had all changed, and the reply was no longer +applicable to the situation. Both the beginning and the end of the reply +referred to the earlier state of affairs. It was absurd to complain that +the terms of the articles were “so general that hard they be to be +answered,” when a detailed list of grievances had been drawn up and sent +to the King, and it was very alarming to find the King still insisting +that the ringleaders must be given up before he would think of a pardon, +when a general pardon had just been proclaimed[169]. + +The Pilgrims believed that they had won their object; the King’s reply +showed that they had lost it. In the very first clause the King spoke +once again of the “light tales”; this always annoyed his opponents. They +might ask, was it a light tale that the monasteries were being +suppressed? Was it a light tale that the Pope’s name was omitted from +the service and the King’s substituted? The King proceeded to outrage +the feelings of the conservatives still further by asking, when they +spoke of the maintenance of the Church, what Church they meant? The very +idea that there could be more than one Church was a horrible innovation. +The King went on to talk about his own Church, of which he was the +Supreme Head, and to declare that this was an affair in which the +commons had no right to interfere. He implies that as they had nothing +to do with the government of the Church in the Pope’s days, so they had +nothing to do with it now. Their part was to believe its doctrines and +bow to its authority, whoever wielded it. But if a layman might be +Supreme Head of the Church, it seemed only reasonable that other laymen +might express their opinion on the subject, especially as many of them +believed the choice between King and Pope so vital as to affect their +eternal welfare. + +The King’s defence of his Council was mere quibbling. Norfolk, Exeter +and Sandys might be nominal members of the Privy Council, but their +advice was never followed, and the King’s policy was determined by their +chief enemy, Thomas Cromwell. Although the King boasted that the rest of +his realm was loyal, the northern men had good reason to believe that a +great part of the south sympathised with them. This was afterwards +admitted by Henry’s panegyrist William Thomas, who said that the King +was forced to treat with the rebels because he had such difficulty in +mustering troops[170]. + +While the King was goading the commons to further rebellion, he was +drugging the gentlemen with gracious promises. Aske was most +flatteringly received at court. The Spanish Chronicler gives an account +of his reception which, though unreliable in details, represents the +King’s general attitude in a picturesque manner:— + + “When he [Aske] arrived where the King was, as soon as the King saw + him he rose up, and throwing his arms around him said aloud that all + might hear: ‘Be ye welcome, my good Aske; it is my wish that here, + before my Council, you ask what you desire and I will grant it.’ Aske + answered, ‘Sir, your Majesty allows yourself to be governed by a + tyrant named Cromwell. Everyone knows if it had not been for him the + seven thousand poor priests I have in my company would not be ruined + wanderers as they are now. They must have enough to live upon, for + they have no handicraft.’ Then the King with a smiling face and words + full of falseness, took from his neck a great chain of gold, which he + had put on for the purpose, and threw it round Aske’s neck, saying to + him: ‘I promise thee, thou art wiser than anyone thinks, and from this + day forward I make thee one of my Council.’ And then on the spot he + ordered a thousand pounds sterling to be given to him, and promised + him the same amount every year as long as he lived. + + “The unhappy Aske, carried away with the chain and the thousand pounds + and grant of annual income, was quite won over, and the King said to + him, ‘Now return to the north, and get your people to disperse and go + to their houses, and I will grant a general pardon for all. In order + that the priests may have enough to live upon I will divide them among + the parish churches and give them an allowance. Let them come at once, + that this may be done. I order that in York each of the parishes shall + take two of these priests, and give them £10 a year to live upon, but + the others I will divide amongst all the towns and villages.’ When + Aske saw the good tidings he had to take back he determined to return + at once; and the King ordered that after all was pacified he should + come to court, and he promised to make him one of his Council.”[171] + +It will be noticed that the Spaniard misses the point with respect to +the monks, and greatly exaggerates the King’s gifts. Yet he preserves +correctly the spirit of the interview. The King gave Aske “a jacket of +crimson satin,”[172] and requested him to write an account of his part +in the Pilgrimage. Aske drew up a full narrative of all that he had done +since the beginning of October. This narrative, to which we have so +often referred, is the first and best history of the Pilgrimage. In it +we see clearly mirrored Aske’s character and views, and it also shows +the King’s flattering attitude towards him while he was at Court. Aske +evidently believed that he could speak very plainly to the King without +giving offence, and, with the standing explanation that he was “only +declaring the hearts of the people,” he spoke out with a bluntness which +must have been an unusual experience to Henry. He did not hesitate to +say that if Cromwell remained in favour there would be danger of more +rebellions “which will be very dangerous to your Grace’s person.”[173] +The King professed himself to be so much pleased by this frankness that +he gave him “a token of pardon for confessing the truth.” + +There was no difficulty in persuading Aske that the King had not known +the real state of affairs in the north, and that now his eyes were +opened all would go well. Cromwell, indeed, either could not win Aske +over, or did not consider him worth winning. He said that all northern +men were traitors, which Aske resented, and his hostility to Norfolk was +very evident[174]. Henry, however, convinced Aske of his good will. He +declared that he fully pardoned all the north, that he intended to hold +the parliament at York, where the Queen should be crowned, that there +should be complete freedom of election, and that convocation should be +held at the same time, at which the spiritualty should “have liberty to +declare their learning.”[175] The free parliament was the chief object +for which Aske had been labouring, and it seemed as if that object was +now within reach. + +On one point, however, he was disillusioned. He discovered that the King +did not mean to give his consent to the temporary restoration of the +monasteries. The only evidence on this point is very slight. When Aske +was arrested a letter was found in his possession written to him by his +sister Dorothy Green. According to his accusers it appeared from this +letter that Aske had written to Dorothy’s husband Richard Green that the +King would not be as good as he promised concerning the Church and the +abbeys. Dorothy Green’s letter has not been found, and Aske’s alleged +letter to Richard Green was never produced; consequently it is +impossible to know how much Aske really learned about the King’s +intentions[176]. His first impulse, on learning some part of the truth, +must have been to send north the news that the King would not confirm +the order for the monks which had been made at Doncaster; but he was +convinced by the King’s professions of goodwill, and believed that if +only there were peace in the north until the parliament met, the +Pilgrims might still be successful without bloodshed. Nothing was more +likely to provoke a serious outbreak than the repudiation of the terms +made for the monasteries, and it may be assumed that these +considerations weighed with Aske so much that he was silent about the +King’s determination. + +The situation of the monks was a very uneasy one, even without knowledge +of the King’s intentions. They were apt to be bullied by their own +champions. William Aclom had carried off “two trussing bedsteads” at the +sack of Leonard Beckwith’s house, and had deposited them at the Priory +of the Holy Trinity at York. He wrote to the Prior on 12 December: “Mr +Prior, I marvel at your doubleness, which is a great vice in a religious +man, touching a bed of Beckwith’s you promised to send to me. I think +you reckon our journey in vain. Send it or I will do you further +displeasure.”[177] The Abbot of Jervaux lost thirty wethers during the +rebellion and appealed to one of the rebels named Edward Middleton, a +hunter, to “find” them. It was probably a case of “no questions asked, +upon my honour.”[178] + +The monastery of Tynemouth was harried; the mutilation of a letter +leaves it doubtful by whom[179]; but perhaps the loyal burgesses of +Newcastle had some hand in it, for they had long been at feud with the +Priory[180]. The monks had no prior at the time. They appealed for +protection to Darcy, who recommended them to Sir Thomas Hilton[181]. + +Some monks suspected that after Doncaster there was little hope for the +success of the Pilgrimage. Dan Ralph Swensune, a monk of Lenton Abbey, +Notts., said at Christmas time, + + “In the misericorde while sitting by the fire on a form ... ‘I hear + say that the King has taken peace with the commonty till after + Christmas, but if they have done so it is alms to hang them up, for + they may well know that he that will not keep no promise with God + Himself but pulls down His churches, he will not keep promise with + them; but if they had gone forth onward up and stricken off his head + then had they done well, for I warrant them if he can overcome them he + will do so by them.’ ‘Peace,’ said the sub-prior, ‘you rail you wot + not whereof.’ ‘Nay,’ said he, ‘I say as it will be.’ ‘Peace,’ said the + sub-prior, ‘In the virtue of obedience I command you speak no more at + this time.’”[182] + +A certain Dan Robert Castelforth had begged Aske to help him to the +priorship of Blyth in Nottingham. On 12 December he wrote to ask for his +letters back again, which was a very prudent measure, unfortunately +defeated by the fact that this letter was preserved[183]. The Abbot of +St Mary’s, York, on 18 January, did his best to make his peace with +Cromwell by sending him a gift and abject apologies for the part that he +had taken in the rising, which, as he said, had been forced upon him by +the commons[184]. + +The less cautious religious were induced to go back to their houses. +Reference has already been made to the cases of Conishead, Cartmell, and +the Friars Observant of Newcastle-upon-Tyne[185]. The Abbot and monks of +Sawley had been restored and were living on the alms of their +neighbours. Nicholas Tempest sent them a fat ox, a mutton and two or +three geese, and others also contributed[186]. A little before Christmas +the Abbot sent a request to Sir Stephen Hamerton that he would write to +Robert Aske to know what should become of the house. The first messenger +returned without an answer, Aske being in London. A second man, George +Shuttleworth, was sent, and returned with the required letter. The Abbot +despatched him with it to Aughton, as Aske had now returned. Aske knew +by this time that the King was not going to allow the monasteries to +stand and therefore advised the Abbot to submit to any man who came to +him in the King’s name and to keep the commons quiet[187]. + +Several of the greater monasteries, though not yet dissolved, had been +thrown into confusion by the fact that the abbot or prior had been +deprived, and the house was left either without a head, or with one who +was a mere creature of Cromwell’s. Tynemouth was without a prior. The +Prior of Watton had fled to London, greatly to the indignation of the +monks and the neighbouring commons[188]. In February 1535–6 the visitors +of the monasteries had induced James Cockerell, the Prior of +Guisborough, to resign[189]. They appointed in his place Robert +Sylvester alias Pursglove, who was “meet and apt both for the King’s +honour and the discharge of your [Cromwell’s] conscience, and also +profitable.” James Cockerell, however, had provision made for him on his +retirement, including a mansion called “the Bishop’s Place” in +Guisborough[190]. With a new prior of this temper and with the old prior +still living in the neighbourhood it was not surprising that the +internal affairs of the monastery did not go smoothly, and twice in the +course of the rebellion Sir John Bulmer, as steward of the Priory, was +called in to mediate. The second time it was the new prior who appealed +to him, from which it may be inferred that Sir John strove to keep the +peace and did not favour the monks unduly[191]. + +Although the Pilgrimage had been undertaken on behalf of the monks, the +secular clergy had been the moving spirits in it, and their ardour had +not yet cooled. On 12 December 1536 Dakyn wrote to William Tristram, the +chantry priest of Lartington, to rebuke him for being over-zealous in +bearing arms, collecting money, and urging his parishioners to +fight[192]. Lancaster Herald reported on 26 December that the +spiritualty of the north were “most corrupted and malicious ... inward +and part outward,”[193] and on 22 January 1536–7 Sir William Fairfax +wrote to Cromwell accusing all the clergy of the north, both regular and +secular:— + + “The houses of religion not suppressed make friends and wag the poor + to stick hard in this opinion, and the monks who were suppressed + inhabit the villages round their houses and daily wag the people to + put them in again. These two sorts hath no small number in their + favours, arguing and speaking. The head tenants of abbots, bishops and + prebendaries have greater familiarity with their landlords than they + used to have. None are more busy to stir the people than the chief + tenants of commandry lands of Saint John of Jerusalem. Where the + archbishop, bishops, abbots and spiritual persons have rule the people + are most ready at a call. The insurrection in Lincolnshire began at + Louth, the Bishop of Lincoln’s town, next at Howden, Yorks, the Bishop + of Durham’s town, Sir Robert Constable, a virtuous pilgrim of grace, + there being steward, and then at Beverley, the Archbishop of York’s + town, York being worst of all.... The King should command his lord + deputy to put out the rulers made by spiritual men, for their bailiffs + are brought up from childhood with priests, and are malicious in their + quarrels.”[194] + +The dean and canons of York were supposed to be laying in a store of +weapons[195]. At Kendal on 28 January there was a tumult in the church +at the bidding of beads; Sir Walter Brown “second curate,” said, +“Commons, I will bid the beads as ye will have me,” and prayed for the +Pope and the cardinals[196]. + +It was very difficult for Darcy and the other gentlemen to control this +ferment, and the difficulty was increased by the behaviour of some of +the gentlemen. + +Since Sir Thomas Percy had gone to Northumberland, the whole country had +been plunged in disorder. “The Percys and their friends and the Grays +and their friends take contrary parts and make contrary proclamations +who shall be sheriff.”[197] Thomas Gray, Darcy’s nephew, who represented +him at Bamborough, sent word to him that twenty-four score ploughs were +laid down in Northumberland on account of the raids made by the +mosstroopers of Tynedale and Reedsdale; “the most part of Northumberland +is broken amongst themselves, and open forays made by Sir Ingram Percy +and others against the Grays.”[198] Darcy sent this news to Norfolk on +15 December 1536[199]. + +Before the appointment Sir Thomas Percy was living at his castle of +Prudhoe on the Tyne, “where the most noted offenders of Tynedale and +Hexhamshire resorted to him, especially John Heron of Chipchase, Edward +Charleton, Cuddy Charleton, Geffray Robson, Anthony Errington and +others.” Sir Thomas, however, was not very often at Prudhoe, as he was +continually riding about the country. He acted as lieutenant of the +Middle Marches, although he had received no authority, and in this +capacity summoned a great meeting at Rothbury for the redress of spoils +and the establishment of Tynedale and Reedsdale. The aggrieved royalists +complained that nothing was done except the proclamation of a peace for +twenty days, which was not observed, and the administration of the +Pilgrims’ oath to all the gentlemen who had not taken it before at +Alnwick. In addition to this Sir Thomas proclaimed that anyone who +captured a Carnaby or a follower of the Carnabys should have the +prisoner’s goods. At Hexham market he demanded of the people “what help +he might have in the quarrel of the commons.” As lieutenant of the +Middle Marches he attempted to hold the “warden’s day” with the Scots, +but they refused to meet him as he had no authority. On this occasion he +spent the night with John Heron at Harbottle Castle, and then rode to +join his brother Sir Ingram at Alnwick. Sir Ingram was very anxious as +to the result of the conference at Doncaster, for it was only too clear +that the private interests of the brothers were a matter of very little +concern to the commons, while their removal was a great object with the +King. “In the chapel at Alnwick” he confided his fears to Sir Thomas. If +the King came to an agreement with the commons it could do the Percys no +good. Sir Thomas reassured him as well as he could. The leaders had +promised to grant nothing without sending him information, and they +would never consent to any terms but a general pardon,—“wherefore let us +do that we think to do whiles we may, and that betimes.”[200] + +In Cumberland the feud between the Dacres and the Cliffords broke out +again, though affairs were not so bad as in Northumberland. Lord +Clifford, Cumberland’s eldest son, was still in Carlisle, but Lord Dacre +had gone up to London some time before. On Saturday 9 December, the last +day of the conference at Doncaster, Richard Dacre, coming to Carlisle +with a company of Lord Dacre’s tenants, met Lord Clifford at the church +door “and looked upon him with a haut and proud countenance, not moving +his bonnet.” In the churchyard he encountered Sir William Musgrave. +“Without speaking one word,” Dacre attacked Musgrave with his dagger, +and would have killed him but for “a son of the laird Featherstonhaugh,” +who snatched out his dagger and leapt between the two. Dacre and +Featherstonhaugh drew their swords, but Musgrave’s men separated them. +Dacre cried through the town “A Dacre! A Dacre!” and a great company +assembled in the market-place. Lord Clifford took refuge in the Castle. +The mayor and Edward Aglionby, a prominent citizen, “commanded Richard +Dacre to avoid the market-place,” but he refused to stir until the mayor +summoned the townsmen to arms and joined Clifford in the Castle. In +spite of the preparations that were being made to attack him Dacre “went +to his lodging and dined and departed at his leisure.” Next Sunday, 17 +December, Dacre appeared at Carlisle again, accompanied by twenty men of +Gilsland “in harness for some unlawful purpose.” By Clifford’s orders +the mayor and Aglionby went out to stop him from entering the town, but +he would not be stayed and entered the market-place. However he found +that Clifford was in possession this time; “he perceived the lord +Clifford, well accompanied, come to the market cross and make a +proclamation....” He probably announced the terms made at Doncaster, but +the account breaks off at this point[201]. + +The zeal of the loyalists was almost as embarrassing to those who were +trying to keep the peace as the lawlessness of the Percys and Dacres. +Shrewsbury demanded the restitution of cattle which had been driven away +during the disturbances[202]. Derby kept a great Christmas at Lathom and +strengthened the Castle, proceedings which the commons watched with a +jealous eye[203]. The Earl of Cumberland was ill about Christmas time, +but he summoned several of the gentlemen who had taken part in the +Pilgrimage to come and see him. Sir Richard Tempest excused himself on +the grounds that he was as “sore a crasyd” as the Earl[204]. Sir Stephen +Hamerton did not dare to go[205]. On 14 December Cumberland reported +that since the appointment at Doncaster, bills had been set on the +church doors of Gargrave, Rylston, Lynton and Burnsall in Craven. These +bills bade the priest order the constable of the parish to charge the +parishioners to be at Rylston on Tuesday [12 December] to kill all the +deer they could find[206]. Cumberland’s retainers had been in the habit +of hunting at Rylston, which belonged to John Norton, whenever they felt +inclined[207], and the commons were following their example; but, as +Cumberland observed, the insurrection had begun with bills set on the +church doors, though the contents of the bills had been different. The +Earl declared his intention of arresting the instigators of the bills; +he suspected that they were “gentlemen, some of them the King’s +servants,” but he had as yet no certain information[208]. He was +evidently hinting at Sir Richard Tempest. Before Christmas the Earl +imprisoned in Skipton Castle “one of Harry Amarton’s sons, a man of law, +and also one Thomas Porter.” They must have been Ribblesdale men, as +Lord Clifford was nearly captured in Christmas week when he went to mass +at Giggleswick; the commons declared that they would take and hold him +until his father released the prisoners[209]. Shortly after Christmas +the travellers assembled in an alehouse at Kettlewell talked of “how +gently my lord of Cumberland had treated such prisoners as had been +a-hunting in his chaces, and Tenande, who had been with them in gaol for +the said matter, affirmed the same.”[210] It does not appear whether +they were speaking sarcastically, or whether Cumberland was really a +model gaoler, whose praises were sounded by his ex-prisoners. The +arrests were injudicious, considering the unsettled state of +Westmorland, and Darcy wrote on 17 January that the Earl of Cumberland +was “likely to have business for two prisoners he keeps.”[211] + +About Christmas time it was reported that Robert Pulleyn, who had been a +leader in the Pilgrimage, had paid the detested levy of the neat geld +and had taken bribes and put men into possession of lands. His +neighbours of Kirkby Stephen attacked him, and “would have spoiled his +goods, but upon sureties and entreaty of certain men they delivered him +again.” “Shortly after the goods of one Mr Rose were taken away by night +of thieves and the country was afraid of burning.”[212] On Saturday 29 +December the tenants of Broughton and Talentire turned the threshers out +of the tithe barns and locked the barn-doors; the movement against the +tithes threatened to spread to the neighbouring villages[213]. On 12 +January the Earl of Cumberland wrote to the King that there had been +musters about Cockermouth since the pardon and that the Westmorland men +were turning against their captains in the late rising “for such money +as they had gathered among them.” Also bills were being set on the +church doors in Yorkshire. The Earl urged emphatically that Carlisle +must be strengthened, as the fortifications were in a state of decay and +the commons would certainly attack the town if they rose again[214]. + +In Richmond a new insurrection was talked of soon after Christmas, and +Dakyn, who preached against the Pope, was saved from being pulled out of +the church only by the intervention of “Ralph Gowre and other honest +men.”[215] Lancaster Herald was attacked in Durham after Christmas, and +on 2 January the Earl of Westmorland was warned that there were +stirrings about Auckland[216]. When Lawson and Gostwick’s servants +returned to Barnard Castle to collect the King’s rents at the time +appointed they found that there was still no money and no prospect of +it[217]. + +The burden of all the letters from Darcy, Cumberland, and Lawson, is the +same; the Duke of Norfolk must be sent at once. If he came and brought a +satisfactory answer from the King the commons would be pacified. It did +not suit Henry, however, to do anything in a hurry. The gentlemen could +scarcely expect Norfolk to return before Christmas, but Christmas +passed, and the new year came, and January was slipping away, and still +there was no news of his approach. Meanwhile so far from soothing the +commons and making the task of the gentlemen easier, all the reports +that came from “above” were of an alarming nature. The King’s answer to +the first five articles put the commons in doubt of their pardon[218]. +It became known that the King was demanding the tenth, and the commons +were quite clever enough to see that any money sent out of the north +weakened them and strengthened the King[219]. It was said that their +harness was to be taken from them and stored at York[220]; that the +appointment was not observed in Lincolnshire[221] but that the prisoners +there were already being brought to execution[222]; that the monasteries +were not to be allowed to stand; and that the King intended to fortify +Hull and Scarborough[223]. These rumours described very accurately the +King’s real intentions. The gentlemen tried not to believe them and +tried to persuade the commons that they were false, but there was all +the more difficulty in doing this as the promise of a parliament did not +pacify the commons at all. They murmured among themselves that “the +Parliament men would not get them what they rose for.”[224] As they +never even thought of being represented in the new parliament, they were +much more inclined to pin their faith on the arbitrary power of the +King, and all their hopes centred in the coming of the Duke of Norfolk. + +The hero of Flodden was very popular in the north—“no man ... would +withstand the Duke of Norfolk, but as for Suffolk they would hold him +herehence the best they could.”[225] The gentlemen therefore found it +easiest to keep order by exhorting the commons to hold over their +grievances until the Duke of Norfolk came. Yet still there was no news +that he had set out. The commons grew more and more uneasy. Another +matter troubled them, Aske had ridden up to London before Christmas, and +since then nothing had been heard of him. The gentlemen suspected him of +betraying them. The commons were more faithful to their leader. They did +indeed suspect treachery, but it was on the King’s part. The rumour ran +that Aske had been beheaded in London[226] and that Norfolk was in the +Tower. The story of Norfolk’s arrest is a spirited narrative, which +shows the pathetic confidence that the northern men had in the Duke, and +also how entirely baseless a most circumstantial story may be:— + + “My Lord Cromwell came to the King and said, ‘Sir, and please your + Grace, ye are minded to send the Duke of Norfolk northward shortly?’ + And the King said ‘Yea.’ And my lord said again, ‘Sir, as far as I can + perceive, my lord of Norfolk hath granted the commonty all their + demands or else he would take their part, and as far as I perceive he + will lose no part of his honour.’ Then the King sent for my lord of + Norfolk and asked him whether he would do so. And he answered the King + that he would be loath but that the commons should have their demands, + and would be loath to lose any part of his honour. Then the King + commanded him to the Tower. And thereupon my lord William [Howard] + went to the lieutenant of the Tower and desired that he might speak + with my lord of Norfolk, and could not; and returned again toward the + Rolls to speak with my Lord Privy Seal, and he was gone and had taken + his barge to go to the Court. Then as my Lord William came along + Chancery Lane he met with Richard Cromwell; and there (said) my lord: + ‘By God’s blood I will be revenged of one of you,’ and took out his + dagger and did stick him therewith, and turned him with his hand and + so killed him.” + +This story was told “in Johnson’s house at Minstergate in York” on +Saturday 13 January[227], but it had probably been travelling about the +country before that date. When Sir Robert Constable heard it he said, +“As in the chronicles of the Romans there was a gentleman who, having +killed the Emperor’s secretary in mistake for the Emperor, ran unto a +pan of coals and burnt off the hand that missed the Emperor; so the said +lord William may burn his hand for missing of killing my lord +Cromwell.”[228] + +In the East Riding the agitation was strongest. The commons feared that +Hull and Scarborough were to be fortified and held by the Duke of +Suffolk, to become a refuge for the gentlemen and a menace to the +commons if the King resolved to deny their petition. The leader of this +agitation was John Hallam[229]. His position with regard to the +gentlemen leaders of the Pilgrimage was rather similar to that of a +Labour member towards members of a Liberal government at the present +day. Having no responsibility himself, he was always ready to urge on +the most sweeping measures and the most dangerous enterprises. He was +quite shrewd enough to see through the King’s moves, but not wise enough +to realise that policy must be met by policy, and that to resort to +violence was to play into his opponent’s hand. It was not without reason +that he distrusted the gentlemen, and he had not sufficient tact to +conceal his suspicions and strive at all costs to preserve unity among +the Pilgrims. The fatal cleavage between class and class was broadening +rapidly; as always happens in the many causes which it has wrecked, each +party had a certain amount of reason, the gentlemen to fear the commons, +the commons to distrust the gentlemen; but to quarrel among themselves +merely increased the danger. Their only chance of obtaining their +purpose and securing their pardon lay in strict co-operation. Neither +party could understand this. The commons could not be patient, and +raised a cry of treachery at each delay. The gentlemen grew more and +more alarmed by their turbulence, and were continually tempted to throw +over the cause and make themselves safe individually. + +Hallam made his headquarters at Watton parish church. As early as +Christmas, before the appointment was a month old, he was whispering to +its frequenters that Hull was false to the commons, and that the men of +Holderness were ready to rise again. He saw as plainly as did the King +that if Hull and Scarborough were fortified and garrisoned “they were +able to destroy the whole country about.”[230] Twelfth Day, the feast of +Epiphany, 6 January, fell this year on a Saturday. The following Monday, +8 January, was called Plough Monday, and was a festival and +holiday[231]. Hallam and his friends celebrated it by drinking at John +Bell’s tavern in Watton, and after the festivity was over, Hallam, Hugh +Langdale, Philip Uty, Thomas Lunde, William Horskey and the vicar of +Watton returned home together. When they came to the church they turned +in to say a paternoster; the vicar left the laymen, who went to Our +Lady’s altar, a chantry in the church. Hallam remarked that Langdale had +come into the country recently and had never taken the commons’ oath. He +brought out a copy of the oath and asked Langdale whether he thought +there was anything unlawful in it. Langdale said no, and took the oath +willingly[232]. Then Hallam said to the others, “Sirs, I fear me lest +Hull do deceive us the commons, for there is ordnance daily carried in +thither by ships, and they make prie yates [privy gates] and Scarborough +shall be better fortified, and the gentlemen will deceive us the +commons, and the King’s Grace intends to perform nothing of our +petitions. Wherefore I think best to take Hull and Scarborough ourselves +betimes; and to the intent that we may do that the better, I think best +that ye, Hugh Langdale, do go forth to William Levening and Robert +Bulmer or William Constable whether [whichever] he would; you, Horskey, +to Sir Robert Constable, and I will go to Hull to inquire what tidings +goeth abroad in those parts and how they are minded there, and after +that let us meet all in this place together again upon Wednesday next, +then to take further counsel what is to be done in this matter.” The +other two promised to take their messages, but next morning, when they +were already mounted and about to start, Hallam met them with a letter +from Robert Aske, announcing that he had returned to the north and was +about to hold a great meeting next day, Tuesday 9 January at Beverley. +He asked Hallam to met him first at Arras and to ride with him to the +meeting. On receiving this great news they all agreed that they must go +to Beverley instead of performing their errands[233]. + +Aske left London on Friday 5 January, riding north secretly and “with +most haste.”[234] It was an amazingly clever stroke of policy on Henry’s +part to send back the leader of the Pilgrims to pacify the disturbance +that the King himself had fomented, and to prevent it from passing +beyond control. Aske rode swiftly and reached home on 8 January, the +very day when Hallam was plotting in Watton church. + +As soon as Aske arrived he wrote to Darcy, repeating the King’s gracious +promises, and saying that he intended to visit Templehurst next day. He +was already busy quieting his own neighbourhood[235], and scarcely had +he arrived when appeals for assistance came pouring in from all +quarters. Hallam’s agitation was known to Sir Marmaduke Constable, who +wrote to welcome Aske home and to beg him to pacify Beverley, which was +ready to rise in consequence of a rumour that the King was secretly +sending ordnance to Hull. Sir Marmaduke said that Hallam would not +listen to him, but Aske might have more influence[236]. + +In consequence of this message Aske appointed the meeting at Beverley +next day. Two manifestos containing the King’s reply were issued to +pacify the country. They are undated, but must have been issued +immediately after Aske’s return. One was by Aske himself, and announced +the King’s promise of a general pardon, and that “your reasonable +petitions shall be ordered by Parliament.” The King himself was coming +to hold the parliament at York, the Queen was to be crowned there, and +the arrival of the Duke of Norfolk might soon be expected[237]. Sir +Oswald Wolsthrope, who had perhaps ridden north with Aske, in another +manifesto repeated and amplified these statements. Norfolk was to bring +the particulars concerning the parliament. He would come “with a mean +company and after a quiet manner.” The parliament, the convocation and +the coronation were all to be held in York at Whitsuntide; until then +the commons had only to keep the peace and refuse to listen to any who +bid them make new disturbances[238]. + +On Tuesday 9 January, instead of going to Templehurst, Aske rode to +Beverley. The Twelve Men and the whole town had assembled, besides many +people from the neighbourhood, among them Horskey, Langdale and Hallam. +Aske addressed the assembly, beginning: “The King’s Highness is good and +gracious unto us the commons all, and he hath granted us all our desires +and petitions, and he will keep a Parliament shortly at York, and there +also for the more favour and goodwill that he beareth to this country he +purposeth to have the Queen’s Grace crowned ...” “adding many other good +words on the King’s behalf.” He went on to declare that the Duke of +Norfolk was coming shortly, and would bring “a better report unto them +from the King’s Grace under the Great Seal.”[239] After Aske’s speech, +questions were asked, as at a modern meeting. Hallam wanted to know why, +if the King’s intentions were so favourable, he had given orders for the +collection of the tenth and of his rents before the parliament time. +Aske had not heard of these orders, and the news must have been a +disagreeable shock to him, but he put the best face he could on the +matter, and said that the King had probably sent only for the money that +had already been collected and was in Archbishop Lee’s hands[240]; in +any case the clergy had freely granted the tenth[241], and the Pilgrims +had decided that “it might be borne well enough.”[242] + +After the meeting Aske and all the principal men who attended it were +invited by Mr Crake and the Twelve Men to dinner at Christopher +Sanderson’s house. When Hallam and Horskey entered the room Crake drew +them aside to a window and said, “Mr Hallam, I pray you stay the country +about you. Ye see how good and gracious the King’s highness is to us and +will be undoubtedly. There be certain lewd fellows abroad in the country +that would stir the people to naughtiness again, as Nicholson of Preston +in Holderness and the bailiff of Snaith. I pray you stay them and be not +counselled by them.” The appeal was judicious, and Hallam was reassured +and pacified. He promised that he would not stir. For the moment this +danger seemed to be averted[243]. + +Aske rode back to Aughton, but next day Wednesday 10 January Sir +Marmaduke Constable appealed to him again. He congratulated him on +quieting Beverley, but a rising was now threatened at Ripon and there +was mustering on a moor near Fountains. The commons said that Aske had +been beheaded in London, and his presence was urgently needed[244]. Next +day, 11 January, Sir Marmaduke wrote to Cromwell to report that Aske had +pacified Beverley and the East Riding, but that the North Riding was +still dangerous, and Norfolk was very much wanted[245]. + +Aske received Sir Marmaduke’s letter on Thursday 11 January, and at the +same time he was summoned by Darcy to come and help to stay the parts +round Templehurst[246]. He sent news of his return and of the King’s +goodwill to Ripon and rode to Templehurst[247]. Darcy had received on 10 +January a summons from the King to go up to court “in order that the +King may show he retains no displeasure against him.”[248] Sir Robert +Constable, who was also at Templehurst, had received a similar summons. +Aske described to them his encouraging interviews with the King, and, as +he had kept a copy of it, he showed them his narrative of his own doings +during the rising. Darcy asked how the King had spoken of him. Aske +replied that the King had referred to him and others as “offenders +before the pardon,” but he had not otherwise mentioned him. They +consulted together over the King’s summons, and decided that as the +country was “in a floughter and a readiness to rise,” it would be very +unwise for Darcy and Constable to alarm the commons by going up to +court. Aske advised Sir Robert to go back to Holme and Darcy to stay +where he was, and promised to write to the King to explain their delay +and to beg him to excuse them[249]. + +On Friday 12 January Aske had returned to Aughton once more, and sent +the King a report of all that had happened and all that he had done +since his return home. The frank and outspoken tone of his letter is a +great contrast to that of Norfolk’s reports. He described how he had +pacified Beverley. The people were very joyous to hear that the King +himself proposed to visit them, and that Norfolk was coming, and the +gentlemen were anxious to keep order; but the commons were still very +wild, bills were posted on the church doors, and unless Norfolk came +soon, accompanied by the worshipful men now with the King, another +rising was to be feared. The points which caused the most uneasiness +were as follows:— + +(1) The people suspected that the parliament would be delayed. + +(2) The King had summoned the leading gentlemen to London. + +(3) The answer to the first five articles made the people doubt whether +the King would confirm the pardon. + +(4) They were afraid of the cities being fortified, especially in the +case of Hull. + +(5) The tenths were being demanded. + +(6) Cromwell (my lord Privy Seal) was in as great favour as ever. + +Aske concluded: + + “Finally, I could not perceive in all the shires, as I came from your + Grace’s homewards, but your Grace’s subjects be wildly minded in their + hearts towards commotions or assistance thereof, by whose abetment yet + I know not; wherefore, Sir, I beseech your Grace to pardon me in this + my rude letter and plainness of the same, for I do utter my poor heart + to your Grace to the intent your Highness may perceive the danger that + may ensue; for on my faith I do greatly fear the end to be only by + battle.”[250] + +He proposed to ride to Ripon on Saturday 13 January to pacify the North +Riding. Darcy seconded Aske’s efforts by issuing a proclamation against +rebellious assemblies[251]. On Saturday 13 January Dorothy Darcy, Sir +George Darcy’s wife, wrote to her husband from Gateforth, begging him to +come home and protect his poor children and herself, as the wildness of +the country filled her with terror. She had heard that the disturbance +at Beverley was due to the arrival of some ships at Hull laden with +wine, corn, and Lenten stores. Although Beverley was pacified, the +country all round Lady Darcy’s home was very much disturbed. In +Kirkbyshire captains had been appointed and at Leeds bills had been set +on the church doors[252]. One of these bills has been preserved and +runs: + + “Commons, keep well your harness. Trust you no gentlemen. Rise all at + once. God shall be your governor and I shall be your captain.”[253] + +Darcy wrote to the King on Sunday 14 January to excuse himself for not +obeying the summons to court. He did not speak of the unsettled state of +the country, which made his presence in the north desirable, but +described his illness. Since the meeting at Doncaster he had not thrice +left his chamber. Nevertheless he was ready to come if his health would +mend a little and if the King would give him leave to come by +water[254]. This may have been merely an excuse, but the journey to +London from Templehurst in mid-winter must really have been a dangerous +undertaking for a man of Darcy’s age in a bad state of health. + +On the news of the disturbance in Beverley the northern gentlemen at +court were sent home. Sir Ralph Evers wrote to Sir John Bulmer that the +Duke was to be at Doncaster on the last day of January, and Sir John was +appointed to attend him with ten men[255]. Sir Ralph Ellerker was +despatched on Monday 15 January with instructions to be delivered to the +corporation of Hull[256]. On 16 January the King sent to Sir Robert +Constable a countermand of the summons to come up to London[257]. + +Henry was satisfied with the result of his manoeuvres. The disturbance +at Beverley, although it had been checked before it came to anything, +gave him an excuse for disregarding the general pardon. A competent +number of victims could now be sacrificed to the cleansing of the King’s +honour. Norfolk was to be sent north at last. A device was made by the +King and his Council “for the perfect establishment of the North parts.” +Not only was Norfolk to be sent into Yorkshire with a council of +“personages of honour, worship and learning,” but Suffolk was to return +to Lincolnshire “and put the men of substance there ready at an hour’s +warning to enter Yorkshire in aid of my lord of Norfolk,” while Sussex +went to assist the Earl of Derby to “put the parts [of Lancashire] not +corrupted with the late rebellion ready to serve the King at an hour’s +warning.” Cheshire was also to be prepared to muster, and “certain +discreet and learned personages” were to be sent into all these parts +“to preach and teach the word of God that the people may the better know +their duties.” The Lord Admiral was to take over Pontefract from Lord +Darcy, and to garrison the castle. Sandall Castle was to be delivered by +Sir Richard Tempest to Sir Henry Saville, who would command a garrison +there, and Ellerker and Evers would place garrisons in Hull and +Scarborough. The other nobles, Shrewsbury, Rutland and the rest, and the +gentlemen who had held command in the King’s army, such as Sir Francis +Brian and Sir William Parr, were to call out their men, ready to march +to Norfolk’s assistance. Provision was made for Norfolk’s train and +salary, for levying the tenth and so forth. This was the end, or almost +the end, of the idea that Norfolk would bear a conciliatory reply from +the King. The Council, which always favoured moderate measures, drew up +a list of suggestions which were not quite so drastic; they proposed +that the more favourable parts of the King’s reply should be embodied in +proclamations to be issued in the north, and that the people should “be +given hope of pardon, for despair might cause them to reassemble,” but +the King would temporise no more[258]. A minute was drawn up of a letter +which directed the gentlemen of the north to have their servants ready +to assist Norfolk in the punishment of those who had offended since the +proclamation of the pardon. The King trusted that this might be effected +without difficulty, but although the most part of his subjects were +sincerely repentant, “there may remain some desperate persons who might +move further sedition.”[259] + +The King was determined to have his executions, even if they provoked a +new rising; but he was to be more fortunate than he as yet dared to +hope. + +NOTES TO CHAPTER XVI + + Note A. Froude adds to the complication of the huge Constable family + by calling Marmaduke Nevill Sir Marmaduke Constable. The historians of + the Tower have assigned the inscription of Marmaduke Nevill to some + unknown relation of the last Earl of Westmorland who may have taken + part in the Rising of the North[260], but it is more likely to have + been cut by the Marmaduke Nevill who is known to have existed in 1537. + + Note B. The herald says Monday 12 November, but this must be a + mistake. + + Note C. The evidence is that George Lassells said that Thomas Estoft + said that Thomas Saltmarsh said that Darcy had said this[261]. Thomas + Estoft was interrogated and deposed that Thomas Saltmarsh had told him + that Darcy advised Aske to lay post horses and if he sent bad news + Darcy would rescue him, but without the details, which seem to have + sprung from Lassells’ imagination[262]. “One Saltmarsh” had quarrelled + with Aske at the beginning of the rebellion “disdaining that he should + be above him”; possibly this was the Thomas Saltmarsh who spread the + story[263]. + + Note D. The Spanish Chronicle gives a confused account of this speech: + + “When [Aske] arrived to where his people were he made them a speech + after this fashion: ‘Oh, my brothers and gentlemen, what a wise and + virtuous prince we have! He recognised the justice of our cause, has + given us a general pardon, and to you, the priests, he will give + enough to live upon. Here is an order for York, providing for many + of you in the parishes there, and you are to go thither at once to + be apportioned to various places.’ When the people heard this they + all cried with one voice, ‘Long live our good King!’ and the + hostages were sent back to the Duke’s quarters, and, in short, in a + few hours all the people were on their way home, for they were + already tired of it, and had wasted a good deal of their + cattle.”[264] The Spaniard confuses Aske’s return from London with + his return to Pontefract after the second conference at Doncaster. + + Note E. In his letter of 12 January Aske says that he has already gone + to Lord Darcy[265]. Afterwards, in his examination, he said that he + received Darcy’s letter four or five days after he was at + Beverley[266], but it was natural that his memory of such hurrying + days should be rather confused. + + + + + CHAPTER XVII + HALLAM AND BIGOD + + +The leaders of the Pilgrimage undertook an impossible task when they +promised at Doncaster to keep the north quiet until Norfolk’s return. +When a large region has been in open insurrection for three months, it +cannot be restored to order at a word. It is true that the gentlemen did +not realise then what they were required to do. They expected Norfolk to +return within a month, and they expected that the King would make +allowance for the difficulties of their position. They were mistaken in +both points. Norfolk’s return was delayed, and Henry was prepared to +exact from the north a state of immaculate order to which few counties +in England ever attained, even in times of peace. As soon as the +Pilgrims allowed themselves to be put off by vague promises their cause +was lost. Even if they had exacted a definite agreement with proper +guarantees at Doncaster, it would probably have made no difference in +the end. Nothing but force could have induced Henry to observe such a +treaty. Even if the parliament which they desired had met, it is +unlikely that it would have achieved anything. Henry was no Charles I. +With Cromwell’s help he knew how to manage parliaments. The Pilgrims’ +one chance of success had lain in battle. The two parties were very +evenly balanced. Henry had a better general and on the whole better +supplies, but the Pilgrims had the advantage in numbers and enthusiasm, +and were on their own ground. They did not choose to push the matter to +fighting, and they failed. + +It is impossible to regret their failure now. If England had been rent +by a religious civil war at the very outset of modern history, as the +Reformation has rightly been called, she must have been seriously, +perhaps fatally, crippled, and prevented from taking her place among the +greater European powers. No country which had undergone the strain of +the Hundred Years War, followed by the Wars of the Roses, could have +borne in succession a third war more terrible than either of these. The +Pilgrims cannot be accused of weakness when their decision was so truly +patriotic, but it was fatal to themselves and their cause. Once that +decision was taken the result was inevitable. Henry would observe no +treaty with rebels when he could safely repudiate it. The rising of +Hallam and Bigod gave him a good excuse, but before that excuse was +offered he had already found others. The disturbance at Beverley, the +deer-stealing at Rylston, the tithe riots in Cumberland, the restoration +of the monks at Sawley—anything was a sufficient pretext for declaring +that the King was no longer bound by the terms, and for bringing the +champions of the old faith to trial and execution; but the catastrophe +was precipitated by an ally of the most fatal kind, a political +theorist. + +During the progress of the first rising a glimpse has been caught from +time to time of Sir Francis Bigod. As might have been expected from his +previous history, he was by no means in sympathy with the Pilgrims. His +attempted flight and capture have already been described[267]. The band +of commons who took him all unconsciously did their cause a great +disservice. Once involved in the rising Sir Francis quickly grew +interested. The movement gave him plenty of scope to indulge in his +chief passion, which was to reform monasteries. He was far from acting +in the spirit of Cromwell’s commissioners. The welfare of the abbeys was +his real object, and he made no profit for himself, but his views were +in every way peculiar. His activities began about Martinmas (11 November +1536) at the monastery of Guisborough[268]. + +The resignation of James Cockerell, Prior of Guisborough, and the +appointment of a new prior by the visitors have been mentioned +above[269]. As usually happened in these cases, the new prior accused +the old one of having embezzled some of the revenue of the +monastery[270]. Sir Francis Bigod acted in this matter on behalf of +Cockerell, who is always called the Quondam of Guisborough[271]. Having +thus a footing in the affairs of the monastery, he made up his mind that +the new prior had not been chosen formally according to the laws of God +and the old custom, and that the house ought to be reformed. He wrote to +consult the Earl of Westmorland on the subject, pointing out that the +new prior had been put in only by Cromwell’s authority and that the +people did not consider him a true prior. His proposal was that to quiet +the country the new prior’s accounts should be made up and the prior +himself expelled. Then another prior might be chosen “by virtue of the +holy comentie and by the assent of all the religious brethren belonging +to their chapter.”[272] In consequence of these disturbances Sir John +Bulmer was ordered by the council of York to regulate the affairs of +Guisborough, but the prior was not deposed[273]. + +Bigod himself was not at the council of York, but before it met his +brother Ralph told him that the clergy were to assemble and decide “what +they judged to be reformed concerning the faith and for heresy.” After +the council was over Aske sent Sir Francis as a captain to Scarborough, +probably to look into the affair of Edward Waters. Hallam came from York +to Scarborough and reported what the council had resolved upon[274]. Sir +Francis attended the great meeting at Pontefract[275], and like several +of the other gentlemen, he wrote down his opinion on the various +questions which were under discussion, “the title of Supreme Head, the +statute of suppression, and the taking away the liberties of the +Church.”[276] His “book” made no particular impression at Pontefract. It +is never mentioned by the leaders, while the commons looked upon him as +one of Cromwell’s agents, and he was even in danger of his life[277]. +Sir Francis, however, had naturally an author’s pride in his own work. +It seems to have been much longer and more elaborate than the books of +the other gentlemen. The views which it expressed were entirely +individual and did not conform to the standards either of Rome or of the +government. The author attempted to define “what authority belonged to +the Pope, what to a bishop, and what to a king, saying that the head of +the Church of England might be a spiritual man, as the archbishop of +Canterbury or such, but in no wise the King, for he should with the +sword defend all spiritual men in their right.”[278] + +The Quondam of Guisborough read the book, and, by Sir Francis’ account, +praised it highly, “saying no man could mend it, and he durst die in the +quarrel with Bigod,” and when the author promised him a copy, he said +that “he would make as much thereof as of a piece of St Augustine’s +works.” The Quondam admitted that he had seen the book, but he denied +that he had commended it. He took exception to one passage, at any rate, +in which Bigod asserted that the King held his sword immediately from +God. The Quondam pointed out that “we hold opinion that the King has his +sword by permission and delivery of the Church into his hands and not +otherwise.” Bigod seems to have accepted the correction[279]. + +The Quondam of Guisborough was not Bigod’s only literary friend among +the regular clergy. Sir Francis was also a frequent visitor at the +monastery of Malton in Rydale, where he was told of a prophesy by the +Prior, William Todde[280]. It was at the Prior’s table that he first +heard the rumour that Cromwell was plotting to marry Lady Margaret +Douglas and to become the King’s heir[281]. + +Sir Francis also lent a hand in the disordered affairs of the monastery +of Watton, which was, like Malton, a Gilbertine priory[282], containing +both monks and nuns to the number of between three and four score[283]. +The flight of the Prior appointed by Cromwell and Aske’s intervention to +help the deserted religious have already been mentioned[284]. The +absconding Prior had previously held the same office at St Katherine’s, +Lincoln[285]. During his brief term at Watton he had made himself +universally disliked; “while he was there he was good to no man and took +of Hallam 20 marks where he should have been paid in corn when God +should send it; and he gives many unkind words to his tenants in his +court, more like a judge than a religious man.”[286] The monks +afterwards declared that it was only the commons who were discontented +with the Prior. He had put Hallam out of a farm, and Hallam in revenge +during the insurrection brought a number of his soldiers to the +monastery, just as the brothers were sitting down to dinner, and ordered +them to elect a new prior[287]. The priors of Ellerton and St Andrew’s, +York, were both present, and Hallam advised the canons to nominate the +former, Dan James Lawrence[288]; if they did not obey him, Hallam +threatened to plunder their house and make a new prior himself. +Thereupon the canons nominated the Prior of Ellerton, but only as a form +to satisfy Hallam[289]. Lawrence never acted as prior, and the canons +wrote to Aske to beg him to appoint a new one for them[290]. By his +advice they accepted the sub-prior as the prior’s deputy[291]. + +Hugh Langdale, Hallam’s friend, attended his new master the Prior on his +flight to London, leaving his wife behind him[292]. A little before +Christmas she wrote to tell him how much she had suffered during the +rising and to beg him to come back to her. Her letter was carried by +Thomas Lownde of Watton Carre, who returned about 26 December. Lownde +met Hallam in a house by the Priory gates at Watton and Hallam asked him +for the London news. Lownde said that “my lord prior was merry,” to +which Hallam rejoined, “no more of that, for an ye call him lord any +more thou shalt lose thy head.” He wanted to know what was the opinion +of the south about the insurrection. Lownde answered that some +Nottingham men with whom he had ridden from London to Stamford, told him +that they wished the northern men had come forward, “for then they +should have had me to take their parts.” Also when he was in London at a +“corser’s” [calcearius, shoemaker] house between Cow Cross and +Smithfield, the good man said to him, “Because ye are a northern man ye +shall pay but 6_d._ for your shoes, for ye have done very well there of +late: and would to God ye had come to an end, for we were in the same +mind that ye were.”[293] + +The sub-prior of Watton, the confessor of the nuns, the vicar of Watton, +and Anthony one of the canons, were all heard to say that there would be +no real restoration of religion so long as the King held the title of +Supreme Head, and that the only way to force him to lay it down was by a +new insurrection[294]. + +In this hot-bed Hallam’s plans had been flourishing, but at the Beverley +meeting on Tuesday 9 January 1536–7 he received a check, and he returned +to Watton with the intention of waiting at least until he saw the King’s +next move. + +While Hallam was being persuaded to trust the King, Bigod was becoming +more and more convinced that it would be folly to do so. On the same +Tuesday 9 January he set out from Mulgrave to ride to York “for a matter +between the Treasury and the old prior of Guisborough.” He had with him +a copy of the King’s pardon, which he had been considering very +seriously. In discussing it with his friend the Prior of Malton, whom he +visited on his journey, he remarked that the pardon would enrage the +Scots, who were called “our old ancient enemies.” The Prior, in return +for the pardon, showed him a copy of the Pilgrims’ articles, and Sir +Francis gave the Prior’s servant two groats to copy it and send the copy +after him[295]. He left Malton for Settrington, where he expected to +meet his brother Ralph. Next day, Wednesday 10 January, he arrived at +Watton, still on his way to York, and went to Hallam’s house. They +visited the Priory together, and once more urged the canons to elect a +new prior[296]. Bigod drew up a form for them, in which the present +Prior was referred to as “the late prior of St Katherine’s, +Lincoln.”[297] The canons thought that this was not respectful; they +sent to Beverley for a notary and had another document drawn up, which +appointed James Lawrence to be their prior[298]. The canons gave this +paper to Wade a bachelor of divinity dwelling near by, in order that +they might show the new nomination to the commons if there were a fresh +insurrection; but they protested that they did this through fear of the +commons, and not with any serious idea of deposing their prior[299]. + +Hallam and Bigod both supped at the Priory. Bigod produced the King’s +pardon and explained his doubts about it. He pointed out that it did not +run in the King’s name, but “began as another man’s tale, ‘Albeit the +King’s Highness,’” and that it was in the third person throughout, from +which he judged that it was really the work of Cromwell[300] who was +higher in favour than ever[301]. In Bigod’s opinion a pardon in that +form would not prevent a sheriff from imprisoning a man and seizing his +lands and goods; besides it was dated two days after it had been +read[302]. He also objected to the statement in the pardon that the King +had charge of his subjects both body and soul. Sir Francis declared that +the King should have no cure of his soul. Hallam, the sub-prior Harry +Gill, and two of the canons sat together over the fire while Sir Francis +expounded his views to them, but at this point he drew Hallam aside into +a window and they talked privately together for a long time[303]. + +Sir Francis read to Hallam his book concerning the supreme head of the +Church. From that they passed to the question of Hull and Scarborough. +Everyone in the countryside, said Bigod, was convinced that the towns +ought to be held by the commons until the meeting of the parliament. +Moreover he did not believe that the Duke of Norfolk would do any good +when he came. It would be better and safer either to drive out of the +north any general sent by the King, or to capture Norfolk as he ascended +from the plain of York into the hills about Newborough and Byland, and +to make him take their oath. Hallam, by his own account, hesitated to +attack Norfolk[304]. Others, however, said that they had heard him +threaten, if the Duke were captured, to strike off his head[305]. +Leaving Norfolk out of the question, Hallam was soon persuaded to revive +his former scheme of capturing Hull and Scarborough. Bigod told him that +all the Dales, Swaledale, Wensleydale and the rest, were rising, that +Sir Thomas Percy was coming forward from Northumberland, and that the +East Riding had no choice but to rise as well[306]. It is impossible to +say how much of this Sir Francis believed himself, but there had been +disturbances and bills posted on the church doors in the Dales, and +Northumberland had never been quiet since the last insurrection. + +Sir Francis Bigod stayed at the Priory of Watton that night, but Hallam +went home. Next day, Thursday 11 January, Hallam took William Horskey +into his confidence. After repeating to him all that Sir Francis had +said, he laid before him their plan of campaign. Hallam was to surprise +Hull, while Sir Francis seized Scarborough; they would then meet at +Beverley and march to take Pontefract. The day for the attempt was not +yet appointed[307]. + +Bigod left Watton on Friday 12 January and rode to Settrington. On +Saturday 13 January he sent a servant to bid Hallam come to Settrington. +Hallam arrived on Sunday 14 January, and found that Ralph Fenton of +Ganton and “the friar of St Robert’s” were also there. Bigod told them +that he had news of a rising in Durham and another in the west country. +Lord Latimer had fled, and the commons had spoiled the property of +Archdeacon Franklin and Robert Bowes, whom they accused of betraying +them[308]. Dr John Pickering had sent news of the attack on Lancaster +Herald at Durham[309]. Fenton and Hallam both agreed that Yorkshire must +rise too[310]. + +Hallam returned to Watton on Monday 15 January. That day he was visited +by three Beverley men, Richard Wilson, Roger Kitchen, and John Francis a +baker. Francis was a quiet man with dangerous friends. The day before, +Wilson and Kitchen had asked him to go with them “as it were a-mumming,” +to break up an assembly of “the most ancient men” of Beverley, who were +making merry at Catherell’s house, “because they were of a contrary +faction in a dispute concerning the privilege of the town.” Francis +refused to go with them, and when on Monday they invited him to +accompany them to Calkhill he was suspicious, but they assured him that +their only object was to make merry with Hallam, and Francis agreed to +go with them. They met Hallam at Hutton Cranswick, and all drank +together at Mr Wade’s[311] house. Francis observed that Wilson and +Hallam talked together privately for some time. When the Beverley men +went out to get their horses, Hallam came with them. On the way to the +stable he told them that Sir Francis Bigod had sent the friar of St +Robert’s to Durham to find out whether there was a new rising. Francis +did not like this conversation, and to change the subject he asked +Hallam to sell him “half a score of wheat.” Hallam replied that he would +pass through Beverley on his way to Hull next day, and they could talk +over the bargain then. After Francis had mounted, the other three went +into the stable together and talked for a long time, until Francis +called to them to come. Wilson and Hallam in the stable revealed their +plans to Kitchen. Wilson promised to bring “a great sort out of +Beverley” as soon as he heard that Hallam had set out to take Hull. +Hallam asked Kitchen to be ready on receiving his message to go to +Holderness and desire Richard Wharton, John Thomson, the bailiff of +Brandsburton, William Barker and William Nicholson to meet Hallam in +Hull and drink a quart of wine with him. At last the Beverley men set +out for home with the impatient Francis[312]. + +While Hallam was drinking and plotting in Mr Wade’s house at Hutton +Cranswick two messengers sent by Sir Francis Bigod had arrived at +Hallam’s home. Not finding him there, they went to the Priory, where +they gave a man 2_d._ to bring Hallam to them. The messengers +represented themselves as Bigod’s servants, but one of them was Friar +John Pickering in disguise[313]. Before long Hallam came to the Priory +and they delivered to him a letter from Sir Francis. He sent news that +Durham and Richmondshire were up, that he would attempt to seize +Scarborough next day, and that Hallam must take Hull at the same time +and meet him at Beverley on Wednesday[314]. + +All this was read aloud and supplemented by the messengers in the +presence of the sub-prior, the Prior of Ellerton, Dr Swinburne and other +canons of Watton assembled in a chamber called the “Hal sied” [Hall +Side]. After the reading of the letter, Hallam picked out two of the +convent servants, Anthony Wright or West and Lancelot Wilkinson, to +accompany him to Hull next day, and directed the sub-prior to send them +and a third, Clement Hudson, and to provide them with money, but they +were not to bring horses or harness. His men were to enter the town in +small groups of two or three, like market folks; they were to go to the +market, and begin bargaining for goods until they heard Hallam cry, +“Come hither to me all good commons!” whereupon they must join him and +take the town. After making these arrangements Hallam left the Priory. +The canons were naturally somewhat fluttered, but either from fear or +from sympathy they obeyed Hallam[315], and the cellarer, Thomas Lather, +delivered to the chosen men 3_s._ 4_d._ to last them for two days[316]. + +There was no time to be lost if Hull was to be taken next day, for it +was already nearly 7 o’clock at night[317]. Taking up his station at the +Priory gates, Hallam began to despatch messengers. He sent Andrew Cante +and John Lowrey, labourers of Watton, to Kitchen at Beverley to bid him +deliver the message that he knew of in Holderness. John Prowde was +despatched to bid William Horskey, Philip Uty and Thomas Lownde to be at +Beverley next day by sunrise. All were directed to meet Hallam at +Beverley next day as soon as they had done their errands[318]. + +Early next morning, Tuesday 16 January, the little band set out from +Watton in the dark in order to be at Beverley by sunrise. Hallam wore “a +privy coat of fence made with many folds of linen cloth rosined, and a +privy skull on his head, a sword and a buckler.”[319] + +At William Cooper’s house in Beverley Hallam met Uty, Horskey and +Langdale; he read Bigod’s letter to them and sent them on to Hull to +open communications with some friends in the town[320]. Although these +men were Hallam’s chosen confederates, they were not very reliable. +Langdale said that “what he did was for fear of his life, for Hallam was +so cruel and fierce a man amongst his neighbours that no man durst +disobey him.”[321] Both Langdale and Horskey distrusted Sir Francis +Bigod, while Uty knew Hallam but slightly. As they rode to Hull together +their hearts failed them, and they resolved to betray Hallam to the +magistrates. After some discussion they decided to warn William Crockey, +Robert Grey and Stephen Clare of Hallam’s plot[322]; they would ask them +to inform the mayor without mentioning who had given the warning. + +The first person whom they visited was Crockey, the deputy-customer. +Their pretext was that they wanted to buy a tun of wine, which had been +ordered by the sub-prior of Watton[323]. It was now about 11 o’clock, +and as Hallam had intended to be in Hull by 9[324], the informers knew +that they must make haste. Langdale and Uty put Horskey forward, and he, +“abashed and trembling,” took Crockey apart. Their embarrassment alarmed +the deputy-customer so much that he exclaimed, “What news? How do ye all +in your parts?” Horskey answered, “Naught[325], for we were commanded +yesternight about midnight, pain of death, to be here this day, and for +to take the town, as I suppose.”[326] + +Crockey at once went and told Robert Grey, who said “he trowed all would +be nought, wherefore let every man do his best.” Not finding much +support in this enigmatic remark, Crockey went next to Mr Johnson, an +alderman, who took him to the mayor’s house. There they found that they +had been forestalled, as “one Fowbery” was already laying the matter +before the mayor[327]. This man was John Fowbery of Newbold, a servant +of the Earl of Surrey[328]. He had taken part in the first +insurrection[329], and was in Hallam’s confidence[330]. By the time +Crockey arrived, Fowbery had disclosed everything to the mayor and +aldermen[331]; and they all went to their houses to arm and prepare to +take Hallam[332]. + +Meanwhile the plot was going badly. On entering Hull Hallam met William +Nicholson of Preston, who had often promised, in the case of a fresh +rising, to join him with 100 or 200 men from Holderness. It was +Nicholson who had suggested the plan of smuggling men into Hull on +market-day as if to attend the market, and Hallam had sent Kitchen to +warn him of the attempt the night before[333]. By ill-luck Nicholson had +set out for Hull before Kitchen arrived[334]. He had not received the +message and therefore had brought no men. Hallam told him to see what +friends he had in the town who could be trusted in the matter[335]. The +bailiff of Snaith had sent to Hallam after Christmas to let him know +that if he made any fresh attempt all the commons of that part would +join him, and it would seem that Hallam had sent a message to Snaith +which also miscarried, but this is not certain. + +Thus Hallam found himself with no support but his own small band. The +attitude of the commons in the town was hostile, and he resolved to +abandon the enterprise. He told the men who were with him to go home, +mounted his horse, and rode out of the Beverley Gate to a watering-place +beside a windmill. Looking back, he saw the town gates were “a-sparring” +[being fastened]. At the watering-place he met Marshall, clerk of +Beswick, and John Fowbery the traitor. Marshall, who really sympathised +with Hallam, exclaimed, “Fie! will ye go your ways and leave your men +behind you[336]?” The situation was a very tempting one. Hallam was +mounted and free to join Bigod, or, if all else failed, to make his way +to Scotland. He had warned his men, and the town gates were on the point +of being shut. To go back was certain death. This history contains many +examples of weakness and betrayal, but from time to time they are +redeemed by some act of high courage and faith, such as that which +Hallam now achieved. He turned and rode back to Hull. + +The traitor Fowbery played his part to the last; exclaiming, “And I will +turn again to seek for some of my neighbours that be there too,” he rode +ahead of Hallam to the gates, where two of the aldermen, William Knolles +and John Eland, were giving orders[337]. These were the aldermen who had +surrendered Hull to the rebels[338]. Fowbery called out, “An you look +not shortly of your man Hallam, he will subdue you all.” Eland answered, +“I know him not,” and Fowbery said, “Yon is he that is on horseback in +the yeatts [gates] and ye may see the people assemble hastily till him.” +Eland grasped Knolles by the arm, crying, “Go way, for we will have +him,” and they went up to Hallam together[339]. He, from outside, asked +them to let his neighbours come out before they barred the gates[340]. +The two aldermen came out and asked him his name; he answered, “My name +is Hallam.” Knolles said, “Then thou art the false traitor that I look +for.”[341] The aldermen were standing one on each side of his horse, and +at the word they both attacked him with their daggers, but his coat of +fence saved him. There was a general struggle. Hallam’s neighbours and +the city guard both ran out to help their respective champions. Knolles +was knocked down, but rescued by his men, and seized Hallam’s +companions. Eland clung to Hallam, and, striking at him, cut his bridle +rein. He was afraid that Hallam would escape, but the horse fell into +the Busse ditch, and Hallam was forced to dismount. He drew his sword +and “many stripes were taken among them.” They “bickered together” until +they were both badly wounded and Hallam was at length captured[342]. +There were only two men with him, Thomas Water and John Prowde[343]. As +the prisoners were being led through the streets, William Nicholson +attempted to create a diversion in their favour. He cried to the guards, +“Jesus! What mean ye? Will ye murder me now?” and there was another +fray, in which Nicholson was wounded and captured[344]. So ended the +disastrous attempt to recover Hull. + +Bigod’s letter declared that he had received positive news that the +commons of Durham and Richmond intended to rise on 16 January, the day +on which the simultaneous attempts on Hull and Scarborough were made. +These messages have not been preserved, but Sir Francis acted on them at +once, and on Monday 15 January his servants were despatched in every +direction to call out men for the new rising. Besides the two who went +to Watton, one was sent to Bigod’s friend the Prior of Malton, to order +a muster there next day[345]. Another was sent to Durham with letters +for Auckland, Staindrop, Richmond and the city of Durham, enclosing a +new oath[346]. This man arrived at Brancepeth on Wednesday 17 +January[347]. On the same Monday Bigod summoned to him William Levening +of Acklam, and caused him to take the new oath. He told him the news +from Durham and Richmond, and ordered him to send a summons to a muster +at Borough next day to all the neighbouring constables[348]. At night +the beacon at Settrington was lighted[349]. + +The nearest gentleman was George Lumley of Thwing, who was just +recovering from an illness. Richard Simpson, the constable of Thwing, +came to him as he lay in bed on Tuesday morning, 16 January, with news +of the summons and the beacon. Lumley, his wife, and the constable, were +all thrown into great perplexity, as they did not know whether this was +a muster on behalf of the King or against him. At first Lumley thought +of sending a servant to make inquiries, but in the end he decided to go +himself, “for an if the assembly were for the King, ... it was his duty +to be there. And if it were about any new business of commotion, then he +thought it was best for him to go thither also for to stay them, or else +it might be laid to his charge afterward that seeing there were few +gentlemen else in that quarter that he did not endeavour himself to stay +them.... Thinking at the least way, if he could do no good among them, +he would do no harm.” He set out, therefore, taking with him two +servants[350]. + +At Borough they met a body of men, who conducted them to an assembly of +about thirty or forty persons on a little “howe” [hill]. These men had +no idea why they were summoned, but had come in response to the beacon. +Presently Sir Francis Bigod appeared at the head of about a hundred +horsemen. George Lumley tried to draw him aside to question him, but +Bigod said that “he would commune with no man of any thing but that the +whole company should be privy unto.” Thereupon he mounted the hillock +and addressed those who had assembled. George Lumley afterwards gave the +substance of his speech in a medley of oratio recta and oratio obliqua:— + + “He declared to the people that there were many causes that they had + need to look upon, or else they should be all shortly destroyed; for + the gentlemen of the country (said he) had deceived the commons. And + said that the Bishopric and Cleveland were up already and would go + forward to have their articles fulfilled, trusting that you will not + now leave them in the dust seeing they took your part afore, and it is + in the defence of all your weals. For my Lord of Norfolk is coming + down with twenty thousand men to take Hull and Scarborough and other + haven towns, which shall be our destruction unless we prevent him + therein and take them before. And so I and my fellow Hallam purpose to + do, for we are both appointed to meet at Beverley this night and so to + raise the country and go forward to Hull[351]. And I think it + necessary that you command Mr Lumley here to go with you to + Scarborough to take the Castle and town and keep the port and haven + from any such as should come in there to be your destruction, as I + have written a letter to the bailiffs of Scarborough that they should + help thus to do with the aid of you the commons that I shall send unto + them.”[352] + +Sir Francis then brought out two letters, which he gave to Lumley, +charging him on pain of death to deliver them. One was to the bailiffs +of Scarborough, and the other was to the dowager countess of +Northumberland to request her to summon Sir Thomas Percy to come forward +with all his men, with the promise that Bigod and the commons would +restore his lands to him. Lumley opened and read the second letter, and +then despatched one of his servants with it. + +After giving him the letters, Bigod continued his speech: + + “Also ye are deceived by a colour of a pardon, for it is called a + pardon that ye have and it is none but a proclamation.” + +At this point he read aloud a copy of the pardon, and then went on: + + “It is no more but as if I would say unto you, the King’s grace will + give you a pardon, and bade you go to the Chancery and fetch it. And + yet the same is no pardon. Also here ye are called rebells, by the + which ye shall knowledge yourselves to have done against the King, + which is contrary to your oath.” + +The commons, who had always been suspicious of the pardon, were very +much moved by this. One cried out, “The King hath sent us the fawcet and +keepeth the spigot himself!” while another said that “as for the pardon +it makes no matter whether they had any or not, for they never offended +the King nor his laws, wherefore they should need to have any pardon.” +After the clamour had died down, Bigod proceeded: + + “A parliament is appointed as they say, but neither the place where + nor the time when it should be kept is appointed. And also here is + that the King should have cure both of your body and soul, which is + plain false, for it is against the Gospel of Christ, and that will I + justify even to my death. And therefore if ye will take my part in + this and defend it, I will not fail you so long as I live to the + uttermost of my power; and who will so do assure me by your hands and + hold them up.” + +Thereupon all present held up their hands with a great shout and cried +that they would strike off the head of any man who did not do as they +did. A tall man dressed like a priest, who had come with Bigod, said +that “if they went not forward, all was lost that they had done before, +for all was but falsehood that was wrought against them.” He was +probably one of the ever-zealous friars of Knaresborough. Bigod promised +the commons that “the fat priests’ benefices of the south that were not +resident upon the same and money of the suppressed abbeys should find +the poor soldiers that were not able to bear their own charges.” He told +Lumley and the commons who were to remain with him that he had already +summoned the wapentake of Dickering to join them[353]. + +Then Sir Francis rode away with his horsemen in the direction of Hull, +and Lumley was left to occupy Scarborough with about forty men. His +position was a very awkward one. Bigod’s speech must have made a great +impression even on Lumley, as he was able to repeat so much of it three +weeks afterwards, and it had roused intense enthusiasm among the +commons. As Sir Francis disappeared they exclaimed, “Blessed was the day +that Sir Francis Bigod, Ralph Fenton, John Hallam and the friar of St +Robert’s met together, for an if they had not set their heads together +this matter had never been bolted out.” They were ready to be led on any +enterprise, but unfortunately George Lumley was far from being ready to +lead them. In character he bore a marked resemblance to one of Sir +Walter Scott’s weaker-minded heroes, such as Edward Waverley; he was a +well-meaning but ordinary young man, quite unequal to the task of making +up his mind, or assuming a grave responsibility. He had hesitated before +setting out, and his vague hopes that it might prove to be a muster for +the King, or that he might induce the commons to disperse, were now at +an end. In all the previous course of the rebellion he had never done +anything on his own initiative. At the present moment, although his +intentions were loyal to the King, he found himself with a single +servant surrounded by forty excited and resolute countrymen. The number +was not great for taking a fortress, but it was too many for him to +persuade or command to depart. Accordingly he submitted to circumstances +and set out for Scarborough. On the way, at a place called Monyhouse, he +found a muster of the Dickering men, as Sir Francis had expected. They +were all ready to march to Scarborough, but Lumley would take with him +only two men from each township, and dismissed the rest to their homes. +Even with this limitation his force was raised to six or seven score, +too many for Lumley’s comfort, but too few to please his followers, who +insisted on summoning Pickering Lythe to muster next day at Spittels to +give them aid if they should need it[354]. + +At the same time they sent to the Priory of Bridlington for help. The +prior asserted that he ordered his men not to obey the summons and armed +them in order that they might resist the rebels if they came that way, +but he was accused of arming them for and not against Lumley[355]. + +Lumley’s company entered Scarborough without encountering the least +opposition. Lumley issued a proclamation that no one should take +anything without paying for it, and that no revenge should be attempted +against the men who had defended the castle during the last rebellion. +By this time it must have been evening, and he went to his lodging for +the night, but the commons were not yet satisfied. They were afraid that +forces might make their way into the castle, which was unoccupied. In +order to secure it, they wished to take up their quarters in it. Lumley +would not permit this. He replied that “he would not be of their counsel +to enter into the castle, for it was the King’s house, and there had +they nor he nothing to do. And their oath was to do no thing against the +King.” In the face of this argument the commons did not insist upon +entering the castle, but they set a watch round it, in order that no one +should surprise it. Lumley went back to his lodging, where he found some +more of his servants. About midnight he sent one of them to old Sir +Ralph Evers to warn him that the castle was guarded, and to assure him +that Lumley would do his best to persuade the commons to go home +quietly, and that he hoped in a short time young Sir Ralph would be able +to occupy the castle without any opposition. + +Next morning, Wednesday 17 January, Lumley and the commons met the +bailiffs of the town at the Grey Friars. The town officers took the oath +to be true to the commons according to a new form prescribed by Sir +Francis Bigod, “the effect whereof was in all things like the former +oath with this addition, that no man should give counsel to any man to +sit still until such time as they had obtained their former +wishes.”[356] Bigod seems to have drawn up several forms of the oath; +another draft enjoined the commons to keep their former oath, “and not +urging any to join them, to prepare themselves to battle against the +undoers of Christ’s Church and the common wealth.”[357] + +After administering the oath the commons demanded that three of Sir +Ralph Evers’ servants should be surrendered to them. These were Guy +Fishe, Lancelot Lacy and one Lockwood. The commons had resolved to put +them to death on account of their part in the defence of the castle. +Lockwood and probably the other two also were present at the Grey +Friars. By “fervent request and long entreaty” George Lumley prevailed +upon his men to spare them. + +The commons next resolved to enter the castle, but here again the +exhortations of Lumley and the bailiffs of the town induced them to give +up their purpose for the present. + +By this time Lumley and his followers must have been heartily tired of +one another, and accordingly he met with no opposition when he said that +he must go home and attend to his own business. John Wyvell was chosen +captain in his place, and Lumley prepared to depart. He said that Wyvell +had enough men to keep the town, and ordered his own company to return +with him; he also took Lancelot Lacy, one of the threatened men. Wyvell +complained that he would be “left very sklender,” and that men from the +neighbouring villages must be summoned to supply the place of Lumley’s +men. Lumley promised to send him aid next day and rode off. + +Lumley went first to Spittels, the place appointed for the muster of +Pickering Lythe. On the way he met small bands of commons going to or +returning from the muster. He told them that their fellows had resolved +to hold Scarborough, and ordered them to go to its defence that night +and to return home next day, as he would then send more men. By the time +he reached Spittels those who had attended the muster had all gone home, +for he had purposely delayed his arrival. He felt himself now in a +position to dismiss his own men, and therefore ordered them all to +depart to their houses and not to rise in response to any summons or +beacon unless he sent for them in his own name. In the meanwhile he +promised to lay their doubts before the Duke of Norfolk and “know his +pleasure therein.” They said that they would not rise at the summons of +any man but Lumley himself or Sir Thomas Percy. Lumley urged them to +make no exceptions—“if ye should rise at his calling or any other man’s +then were I in a sore case, for then should I be left alone.” But they +still persisted that if Sir Thomas summoned them they must rise; on this +understanding they disbanded, and George Lumley went home[358]. + +Sir Francis Bigod was sufficiently clear-sighted to see that Hull was +the point on which his energies must be concentrated. With Hull in his +possession, the King could overawe all the East Riding, where +disaffection was most active, but if the town were in the hands of the +commons, it would be a substantial guarantee for the forthcoming +parliament. Accordingly on the first day of the rising he set out to +support Hallam’s attack on Hull, which was of vital importance to his +success, leaving only a small party to occupy Scarborough, which was a +point of much less value, as the experience of the last insurrection had +proved. In all his movements his characteristic qualities appear. He had +very good ideas, but he was quite incapable of carrying them out. He +could see what might be done, and what ought to be done, but he had no +power of organisation. Having decided that Scarborough ought to be +taken, he despatched the first gentleman whom he encountered to take it, +without stopping to consider whether his agent was capable of performing +the task. + +After Sir Francis left Borough on Tuesday morning, his movements cannot +be definitely traced for the next two days, but he had given orders for +a muster at Bainton, a place within a few miles of Beverley, on +Wednesday 17 January[359]. During these two days there was great +activity among the responsible leaders of the Pilgrimage. The news of +the attempt on Hull spread quickly. On the very day, Tuesday 16 January, +the mayor of Hull sent to the Ellerkers for help, and they passed on the +news to Darcy. Bigod’s letter had been found on Hallam, and thus they +learnt of the attack on Scarborough[360]. Sir Robert Constable received +warning of what had taken place the same day, and wrote about it to Aske +from his house at Holme in Spalding Moor. He attributed the rising to +the alarm caused by the printed answer to the first petition, and +suggested that Aske should come to him and that they might ride to Hull +together to declare the King’s true answer[361]. At the same time he +sent out several manifestoes to the disaffected parts of the country, +assuring all men that the parliament, coronation and convocation were to +be held at Whitsuntide in York; “wherefore, good and loving neighbours, +let us stay ourselves and resist those who are disposed to spoil.”[362] +He explained that he was prevented by illness from coming in person to +reassure them, as he was suffering from a severe attack of gout[363]. + +One of these manifestoes was sent to his son Sir Marmaduke Constable, +who despatched it to Thwing. George Lumley sent it on to Scarborough on +Thursday 18 January, with orders that the commons there must all depart +to their homes, after receiving such a favourable answer[364]. + +Aske was at Osgodby on Wednesday 17 January, where he received +Constable’s letter. He was very much distressed by the news, as he saw +that it threatened to destroy the hopes of success which he still +entertained. He obeyed Sir Robert’s summons and set out for Holme, after +forwarding the letter to Darcy with a request for advice and an +exhortation that Darcy would maintain order in his own quarter[365]. +Darcy replied immediately that although he heard very dreadful rumours +he was able to keep his own parts quiet, in spite of the fact that he +was confined to his bed[366]. Darcy also sent congratulations to Hull on +the capture of the rebels[367]. + +On the morning of Thursday 18 January Sir Francis Bigod reached Bainton, +and held a muster there[368]. By this time he had of course received +news of Hallam’s failure, and his first object was to rescue the +prisoners in Hull. From Bainton he wrote to Sir Robert Constable, +enclosing the new oath. He stated the reasons for the new rebellion, and +begged Constable to send him advice as there was no man whom the commons +trusted so much[369]. He despatched three men to Hull to demand the +release of Hallam and the other prisoners, and awaited the replies to +both messages at Bainton[370]. + +Sir Robert Constable’s answer was soon brought. Aske was with him at +Holme and they both sent remonstrances. Their position was a very +difficult one. If they disowned the new movement uncompromisingly, they +would forfeit their influence over the commons, with the result that +they would be regarded as traitors and their words would have no effect. +As they were sincerely opposed to Bigod’s rising, they wished to check +it and prevent ill consequences, not merely to demonstrate their own +loyalty. Accordingly the gist of their letters was an assurance that the +King’s pardon was genuine, that the parliament and the coronation were +to be held in York, and that the Duke of Norfolk was coming with only a +small train. + +Aske’s letter was addressed to the commons, and warned them that “Bigod +intended to have destroyed the effects of our petitions”; and that they +had done very foolishly in listening to him. However, Aske would +represent to the King that they had acted through ignorance and fear, +and if they dispersed quietly he did not doubt that the King would +pardon them[371]. Sir Robert Constable wrote to Bigod. He repeated the +assurances of the King’s good intentions. He could not come himself +because he had gout, but Aske was willing to come to them and tell them +what he had heard from the King’s own lips. The commons ought to be +satisfied with this and remain quiet until Norfolk’s coming. The present +rising was contrary to the appointment at Doncaster, and it was a bad +time of year for fighting. The best thing that Bigod could do would be +to send the commons home again[372]. + +These letters were received by Sir Francis Bigod at Bainton and when +they were read aloud it was agreed that a safe-conduct should be sent to +Aske, in order that he might come and speak to them. Just then +Woodmancey came to Bigod with a private message from Beverley, and +orders were given that the host should enter the town[373]. Old Sir +Ralph Ellerker had taken up his quarters there at the first alarm[374], +but he was not able to offer any resistance, and Bigod entered Beverley +at about four o’clock on Thursday afternoon with between three and four +hundred men[375]. + +There he received a letter from Sir Oswald Wolsthrope commanding the +commons to disperse[376]. Bigod replied that the commons would not trust +Sir Oswald, because he and the other gentlemen had deceived them +before[377]. With this reply he sent a letter to the Dean and Chapter of +York[378], to whom he announced that the commons assembled at Beverley +demanded their support[379]. This letter shows once more Bigod’s +extraordinary mixture of insight and stupidity. The commons are +represented as saying that “all will be undone if they do not go forward +whilst they yet have pledges for the performance of their petitions and +are not in captivity like the men of Lincolnshire and even of Hull. It +behoves the clergy to prevent the danger, for the King understands from +the gentlemen that the Church began the last assembly.” No warning could +have been more true, yet no attempt to avert the danger could have been +more futile than Bigod’s. When he wrote these letters his plans were all +in confusion, for the one to the Dean and Chapter indicates that he +intended to advance on York, while in the other to Sir Oswald Wolsthrope +he said that his forces would withdraw into Richmondshire, there to draw +up a petition to the King[380]. His bewilderment was natural, for his +prospects were becoming more and more gloomy. + +Young Sir Ralph Ellerker, who was in Hull, made two of Bigod’s +messengers prisoners, on the ground that they were traitors and had no +safe-conduct, and sent the third back with an answer which he thought +was enough to terrify Sir Francis out of Beverley. Old Sir Ralph sent to +his son for help; the latter promised to be with him next day at noon +and gave orders for the mustering of Holderness[381]. Bigod had written +to Rudston, who had been the captain of Holderness in the last rising, +but Rudston replied that he was pledged to the King and went to join +Ellerker. Sir Robert Constable also wrote to Rudston, as soon as he +heard that Rudston was going to Hull. He commissioned him to ask +Ellerker to come to Holme with a copy of “the King’s letter,” in order +to pacify the commons. Sir Robert was keeping a watch upon Bigod’s +movements and had his men in readiness, but he had just written to Bigod +and would not stir until he had received an answer. His advice was that +Ellerker should set free Bigod’s messengers, as they had only done their +master’s bidding[382]. + +As nothing but messages of disapproval and news of hostile musters +poured in upon Sir Francis at Beverley that night, he and his followers +entirely lost heart, while old Sir Ralph Ellerker and the loyalists of +the town were much encouraged. Young Sir Ralph was to arrive next +morning, Friday 19 January, but long before he was expected his father +decided that the forces in the town were strong enough to attack without +further delay. No details of the fray have been preserved, but before +the late winter dawn had broken, old Sir Ralph and his men had chased +the rebels out of Beverley and made sixty-two prisoners[383]. + +Young Sir Ralph, who had sent to Lincolnshire for reinforcements and to +the King for ammunition, mustered the men of Cottingham and Holderness +within two miles of the town before 8 o’clock in the morning, and +arrived at Beverley too late to do anything but congratulate the victors +and carry off the prisoners to Hull. Gratifying as the victory was, +young Sir Ralph, in his report to the King, criticised some of the +proceedings. He was disappointed that no one had been killed; if he had +been there no quarter should have been given. It was also a great +blemish that Sir Francis Bigod had been able to make his escape; no one +knew whither he had fled[384]. Nevertheless, in spite of these +drawbacks, the danger in the East Riding was at an end, and it remained +only to spread the news up and down the country[385]. + +After Sir Francis Bigod’s flight the papers which he left in his room at +Beverley were seized by Matthew Boynton[386], son-in-law of Sir John +Bulmer[387]. Among them was the “book” containing his opinion on the +supremacy and on other points of church government, which Sir Francis +had read to Hallam[388], and some letters directed to the Lord Mayor of +York, which were forwarded by the town officers of Beverley with the +news that Bigod had “left early in the morning,” and a warning that the +city and neighbourhood of York must be kept in order[389]. + +Boynton wrote to his father-in-law to warn him that Bigod was thought to +have fled to Cleveland with the intention of raising the commons there. +It would be a most acceptable piece of service to the King if Sir John +could capture him[390]. Boynton did not know the painful situation in +which Sir John was placed. It is tolerably certain that Sir Francis +Bigod had revealed his intentions to Bulmer, who was his uncle by +marriage. Margaret, Sir John’s second wife, William Staynhus his +chaplain, and Ralph his eldest son by his first marriage, also knew of +the scheme. His wife and the chaplain urged him to join his nephew, +saying that the commons wanted but a head, that if one rose all would, +and that if the other gentlemen rose he must do the like[391]. Sir John +himself had no inclination for rising. He was the lessee of the +suppressed nunnery of Rosedale[392], and had been taken by the commons +with violence in the first insurrection[393], in which he had played no +particular part. He was a nervous, excitable man, very unfit for any +dangerous enterprise. Yet in consequence of his temperament Sir Francis’ +doubts about the validity of the pardon made a great impression upon +him. He would not join his nephew’s hopeless attempt, but he sent his +son Ralph up to London in order to discover the King’s real purpose. +When he received Boynton’s message he was anxiously expecting news from +Ralph[394]. In the circumstances it is not surprising that he did not +take Sir Francis. + +The King was well informed as to the progress of events. On Thursday 18 +January Aske sent news of Hallam’s attempt, Bigod’s musters, and the +agitation in the north and west. He reported that the commons of the +north and west “repaired to no worshipful men,” but made their fellows +captains. All the gentlemen were doing their best to quiet the people, +and he begged the King to send Norfolk immediately[395]. On the same day +the mayor of Hull sent the King a full report of Hallam’s attempt and +the arrival of Bigod’s messengers, enclosing the first examinations of +six of Hallam’s men and John Eland’s own account of Hallam’s +capture[396]. Since its capitulation to the Pilgrims, the town of Hull +had been in disgrace with the King, and trade had been interrupted[397]. +Consequently the burgesses were delighted to have this opportunity of +re-establishing their credit with the government. Other letters spread +the tidings of the rebels’ defeat[398]. + +The news from Scarborough was equally favourable to the King. George +Lumley, anxious to prove his ignorance of Bigod’s plot, resolved to +surrender to the Duke of Norfolk. He has been compared to a hero of Sir +Walter Scott’s, but unfortunately real life does not show the happy +turns of a romance; there was no quick-witted outlaw or faithful gipsy +to spirit him away to Scotland and safety in spite of himself, and in +the innocence of his heart he went straight to his death[399]. + +The leaders of the commons at Scarborough were Ralph Fenton and John +Wyvell. They must have heard of Bigod’s flight after they were abandoned +by Lumley, and finding themselves completely deserted by their leaders +and without support, they offered no resistance when young Sir Ralph +Evers occupied the town. The date of this is not certain, but he +probably set out as soon as Lumley surrendered himself. Sir Ralph +imprisoned Wyvell and Fenton, but used no further severity. He “gave the +people comfortable words,” and induced them to promise obedience and “to +wear a cross of St George.” The wearing of these crosses was a sign that +they thankfully accepted the pardon and meant to be as loyal as before +the insurrection[400]. Gregory Conyers, who seems to have been at court +about Twelfth Night, on his return to the north spread the story that +“the King himself of Sunday after Twelfthtide ... openly in the presence +of all noblemen and worshipful men of the country and many other ... +laid his hand of his breast and swore by the faith that he did bear to +God and St George he had not only forgiven and pardoned all his subjects +of the north by his writing under seal, but also freely in his +heart.”[401] The neighbourhood of Scarborough appeared to be quiet, but +for fear of disturbances in other parts Evers garrisoned and prepared +the castle[402]. + +Sir Ralph Evers had prudently taken only two prisoners, but at Hull +there were over seventy, and the first question which confronted the +gentlemen there was how to deal with them. All those who had come to the +defence of Hull met on Saturday 20 January to consider the matter. There +were now in prison at Hull Hallam, Kitchen and six of their company, +Bigod’s two messengers, and the sixty-two prisoners who had been taken +at Beverley; it must have been difficult to find room in the town to +keep so many safely. It was impossible to release Hallam and his +fellows, but while some of the gentlemen advised that all the prisoners +should be kept in ward, others wished to keep only the leaders of the +Beverley captives, while others again thought that all might be released +on bail. Monketon, who was sent by Robert Aske, strongly urged the +last-named course upon them, and it was finally adopted, partly because +it was the most convenient, partly because there were no prisoners of +importance and all declared that they had come against their wills, and +partly because the responsibility for it could be laid upon Aske[403]. + +The result of the attempt on Hull was to bring about the very thing that +the commons had feared, namely, the fortification of the town by the +King. When the prisoners had been disposed of, young Sir Ralph Ellerker +made a full report to Henry, with a request that gunners and gunpowder +might be sent to him, and that he might be allowed a body of two hundred +horsemen until the country was in better order[404]. The request was +justified by the fact that Bigod’s agitation had spread much further +than the East Riding. Bigod believed that Durham, Richmondshire and the +west were on the point of rising; when the immediate danger had been +averted at Hull and Scarborough it still remained to be seen whether +there might not be a more formidable host coming from the north. + +On Wednesday 17 January two of Bigod’s messengers to the north were +taken. Sir William Mallory discovered one of them near Northallerton, +and sent to the Duke of Norfolk a letter from Bigod, which was found in +the man’s possession, urging the commons of Swaledale to rise[405]. The +other messenger took a letter and a copy of the new oath to Durham, and +delivered them to the bailiff and Cuthbert Richardson. The officers of +the town returned answer that the men of Durham had sworn to rise for no +one but the Earl of Westmorland or the King, and that they would “stick +to the King’s pardon.” As the Bishop of Durham was still at Norham, they +sent the letter and the messenger to the Earl of Westmorland at +Brancepeth[406]. The Earl was rather an incapable character, but at +least he had the wisdom to know his own weakness. Having heard a rumour +that he was to be made warden of one of the Marches, he had hurried +south to his uncle Lord Sandys, in order, if possible, to prevent the +dreaded appointment[407]. He left an efficient deputy in the person of +his wife Katharine, daughter of the late Duke of Buckingham, who “rather +playeth the part of a knight than of a lady.”[408] When the bailiff of +Durham brought Bigod’s letter and messenger to the countess on Thursday +18 January, she gave orders for the apprehension of any others who might +come, thanked the bailiff, and sent a copy of the letter to her husband, +directing him to show it to the Lord Privy Seal. Her conclusion was, “I +and all honest men long for your coming home.” The letter was laid +before the Privy Council[409], but in spite of the Countess’ vigour, +when the townsfolk of Durham heard what their bailiff had done, they +seized him and threatened to strike off his head if the messenger was +not released, and the bailiff was obliged to contrive that the prisoner +should be set free.[410] + +It was not Bigod’s letters, however, which were the real danger in the +north, but a secret agitation going on among the commons. Its +originators are unknown. Proclamations and manifestos appeared and +passed from hand to hand, or were fastened on church doors, no one +knowing whence they came. Several of these manifestos were seized and +sent to the King. They were all of a popular character, and show no +trace of Bigod’s influence. One of them was headed, “These be articles +that men may perceive that this entreaty is but feigned policy to subdue +the commons withal,” and proceeded to show that the terms made at +Doncaster had not been kept. The abbeys had been restored only by the +commons, and many of the farmers had sold the abbey lands and fled out +of the country. A parliament had been promised in York “on the twentieth +day,” but it had never been held. Cromwell was as high in favour as +ever. No man was pardoned unless he would acknowledge the King to be +Supreme Head of the Church. Aske had received great rewards in London +for betraying the commons. Hull was being fortified. Therefore if the +commons would save themselves, they must rise at once and make their own +leaders, trusting the gentlemen no more[411]. This may have been the +bill sent up to Norfolk by Lord Scrope from Bolton on 27 January[412]. + +On Friday 19 January a bill appeared in Richmond ordering the commons of +every township to rise on pain of death, to seize the gentlemen and to +make them swear upon the mass-book to maintain the profit of Holy +Church, to take nothing of their tenants but the rent, to put down +Cromwell and all heretics, and to prevent all lords and gentlemen from +going up to London. If any gentlemen refused to take the oath he was to +be put to death and his heir seized and sworn in his stead. This bill +was taken by Sir Thomas Wharton on Sunday 21 January[413]. + +The fact that this agitation was going on further north was known at +Hull, and it was feared that Sir Francis Bigod had fled only to raise +Cleveland[414]. On Saturday 20 January Darcy informed Shrewsbury that +the commons of the north were coming forward, and that they entered the +houses of Lord Latimer, the Earl of Westmorland, and other gentlemen who +had gone up to the King, and made inventories of their goods with the +intention of seizing them if their owners did not return at once[415]. +Lord Latimer heard on the same day that the commons of Richmondshire had +seized his house at Snape. He was on his way to London, but had been +ordered to turn back and wait on Norfolk in York[416]. The property of +the detested Beckwith at Stillingfleet was plundered again on Friday 19 +January[417]. + +In addition to the disturbances in Richmond and Durham, no one knew what +might be happening in Northumberland. When the first news of Bigod’s +rising spread to Lincolnshire, it was said that Sir Thomas Percy had +seized Scarborough[418]. The suspicion against him increased when George +Lumley came to York on Saturday 20 January, and laid before Sir Oswald +Wolsthrope his connection with the rising[419]. It is true that he was +able to state definitely that Sir Thomas Percy had not been at +Scarborough, but he represented that the commons of the neighbourhood +were so deeply attached to Sir Thomas that he was the “lock, key and +ward of this matter.” When examined, Lumley denied that, to his +knowledge, Sir Thomas had had any complicity in the rising; he used +these words to indicate Sir Thomas’ popularity[420]. + +The parson of Leckonfield, Sir Thomas’ chaplain, was at Beverley during +Hallam’s attempt. Bigod asked him whether his master was prepared to +take part in another insurrection, and he replied that Sir Thomas would +rise for no man[421]. As soon as Hallam’s failure was known, the +chaplain hurried off to Northumberland with the news[422]. He travelled +so fast that he arrived before Bigod’s own letter to Sir Thomas, which +was sent to the dowager countess of Northumberland and forwarded by her +with a message that Sir Thomas “should take a substantial way in that +matter upon her blessing.” Sir Thomas declared that he understood this +to mean that he should have nothing to do with Bigod, and that he was +prevented from sending the letter and the messenger who brought it up to +the King only by his respect for his mother[423]. Whatever the countess +may really have meant, for her words scarcely seem to bear her son’s +interpretation, he was not likely to make any move after he had heard of +Hallam’s ill-success, but he was already compromised in more ways than +one. On Wednesday 17 January he had proclaimed a county meeting at +Morpeth. Sir John Widdrington and Lord Ogle prohibited it. The Percys, +contrary to their wont, took this prohibition very well. The coincidence +of the proposed meeting with Bigod’s rising is suspicious, but as Sir +Thomas acquiesced in its abandonment, it was probably no more than an +unfortunate chance. On Monday 22 January the common people swore that +they would burn all Tynedale and Reedsdale, but as the reivers were +Percy’s friends, this was a movement against, rather than for, him. Lord +Ogle succeeded in quieting the people[424]. + +The threat of a Northumberland rising was hanging over the heads of the +gentlemen at Hull when on Tuesday 23 January they examined Hallam and +his accomplices. In consequence of this Aske warned them not to proceed +to execution as yet, for fear of provoking the north[425], and his +advice was so far followed that some of the prisoners were sent to York +to await Norfolk’s arrival[426]. + +The special commissioners who examined them on 23 January were William +Rogers the mayor, Sir Ralph Ellerker the younger, Sir John Constable of +Holderness, Sir William Constable, Sir Christopher Hillyard, and Richard +Smytheley. The chief informer, John Fowbery, was not examined, or at +least his evidence has not been preserved. The justices heard Horskey +and Langdale, who had turned King’s evidence and had accused the +sub-prior and several of the canons of Watton[427]. Hallam was carefully +examined on the 24th and 26th, but said nothing to implicate the monks +of Watton[428]; in fact he did not accuse anyone but those who were +already prisoners[429]. On 25 January William Nicholson of Holderness, +who had tried to rescue Hallam, Roger Kitchen and John Francis of +Beverley were examined. William Crockey the deputy-customer to whom +Horskey and Langdale revealed the plot gave his evidence on Friday 26 +January. The rest of the prisoners were servants and labourers who were +examined on Friday and Saturday[430]. + +The case against all these men was perfectly clear. They had risen in +open rebellion since the pardon. The extenuating circumstance that the +King had deliberately provoked the rising could not be pleaded by them, +and the only question was how far the King would be inclined to show +mercy. On this point the gentlemen were still in some doubt, and +accordingly only Hallam and two others, probably Nicholson and Kitchen, +were condemned to death[431]. The rest were remanded to await the coming +of the Duke of Norfolk[432]. The three were executed before 4 February +1536–7[433], but probably not until Norfolk had been consulted about +their fate. + +On the information of Horskey and Langdale three of the canons of Watton +were arrested before Tuesday 30 January[434]. These were Dan Harry Gyll +the sub-prior, Thomas Lather the cellarer and granator, and Richard +Wilkinson the cellarer of the kitchen. When examined they all three +confessed that they had taken part in the election of a new prior, but +all declared that it had been done through fear of the commons. They +also confessed that it was the general opinion of the monastery that the +King could not be Supreme Head of the Church, that they had heard Sir +Francis Bigod express doubts as to the validity of the pardon, and that +they had sent three men with money to take part in Hallam’s enterprise. +The two cellarers professed to have opposed the sending of the men; they +said that they were unpopular in the monastery because they were the +servants of the prior appointed by Cromwell. Gyll did not attempt to +defend himself. The canons were reserved for Norfolk’s judgment[435]. + +Another instance of a monastery becoming implicated, justly or unjustly, +in the rebellion occurred at this time. Thomas Hungate, a servant of Sir +Arthur Darcy, informed Sir Oswald Wolsthrope that George Shuttleworth, a +servant of Sawley Abbey, had been in Durham when the herald was attacked +(on or before 9 January)[436] and had given out that he was going to Sir +Thomas Percy for counsel[437]. Shuttleworth was arrested about Wednesday +24 January. As suspicion had been so strongly excited against Sir +Thomas, this information was naturally believed to be very important. +When it became known that Shuttleworth had been in company with William +Leache, one of the Lincolnshire refugees, the case against Sir Thomas +and the Abbot of Sawley seemed to be almost proved[438]. Yet when the +matter is as far as possible unravelled, with the help of Shuttleworth’s +deposition, their guilt still remains dubious. + +The Abbot of Sawley’s letter to Aske has already been mentioned. Sir +Thomas Percy was regarded as the founder of Sawley, that is, as the +representative of William, Lord Percy, who founded and endowed the +monastery[439]. The living founder of a monastery was the person to whom +the monks usually appealed in any secular difficulty. After writing to +Aske, the Abbot of Sawley decided to apply to his founder also, and +wrote a supplication to Sir Thomas Percy[440]. He took counsel in this +matter with no one but three monks of the house, his chaplain Estgate, +Bradforde and Parishe. + +Estgate took this letter to Sir Stephen Hamerton whom he found hunting +at Settle Spring. Estgate offered him for nothing a wood which he had +wished to buy from the Abbey two years ago, but Sir Stephen refused such +a dangerous gift. The chaplain told him of the letter to Sir Thomas +Percy, and repeated the most important part of its contents,—that the +commons had restored the monks to their abbey, and that the monks begged +for Sir Thomas’ favour. Hamerton said that he did not see what Sir +Thomas could do for them “but they might do as they list,” and Estgate +left him without any further conversation upon the subject[441]. + +When Shuttleworth returned with Robert Aske’s letter, the Abbot +straightway despatched him to Sir Thomas Percy with the supplication. At +this point a serious difficulty in chronology arises. Shuttleworth said +that he set out at once and reached Richmond on Innocents’ Day, 28 +December 1536[442]. Sir Thomas Percy supported this statement by saying +that he received the Abbot’s letter a month or six weeks before Bigod’s +rising[443]. Against this is to be set the fact that Shuttleworth was +accused of having been in Durham on his way _to_ Sir Thomas, on or +before 9 January 1536–7[444], and that he himself said that he had been +with Robert Aske at Aughton at a time when Aske must have been in +London[445]. William Maunsell, who took part in arresting Shuttleworth +on 24 January, implied that the latter had just returned from his +errand[446]. The only deduction from all this conflicting evidence is +that it is impossible to determine exactly when Shuttleworth’s errand +was performed; more is known about the way in which he performed it. + +The Abbot delivered to him 10_s._ for his expenses, “a bent royal of +gold for a token to Sir Thomas Percy,” and the supplication, the +contents of which Shuttleworth did not know. After receiving these +articles, Shuttleworth went to Richard Broderton’s inn near the Abbey +gates, to have a drink before setting out on his new journey. A friend +asked him to come next day to “an ale,” and he was obliged to refuse the +invitation because he had an errand to Sir Thomas Percy. Another man +heard this, and offered to accompany Shuttleworth, saying that he also +had an errand to Sir Thomas. They set out together, and Shuttleworth +soon discovered that his companion was William Leache, a Lincolnshire +rebel who had been excepted from the King’s pardon. + +Leache told Shuttleworth that he had received a letter signed by Lord +Darcy, Robert Aske and Sir Thomas Percy summoning Lincolnshire to rise +again. He had sent this letter into Lincolnshire with one of his own to +the same effect, but before any answer came “they in Yorkshire took +another way with them.” The letter had fallen into the King’s hands and +consequently Leache had been excluded from the pardon. Now he was going +to Sir Thomas Percy to ask for his intercession with the Duke of +Norfolk. He showed Shuttleworth one of the letters, but it is not clear +whether this was his own letter, or the one alleged to have been signed +by Darcy, Aske and Percy[447]. This letter to Lincolnshire must have +been written before the second appointment at Doncaster, when they “took +another way,” if it was ever written at all, but the whole story is +improbable, for Darcy, Aske and Percy were never together, except for a +few days before the first appointment at Doncaster, and Leache had been +excepted out of the Lincolnshire pardons from the beginning, before the +King was even aware that Yorkshire had risen[448]. + +Leache and Shuttleworth spent the first night of their journey at +Kettlewell, and the next at Ralph Gower’s house in Richmond, where they +fell in with a party of five priests and two or three laymen. On hearing +that Shuttleworth came from Sawley the laymen said, “Fye on them that +dwell nigh about that house, that ever they would suffer the monks to be +put out of it. And that was the first house that was put down in this +country. But rather than our house of Saint Agatha should go down, we +shall all die; and if any insurrection should happen here again, where +there was but one in the same before, now there would be three.” + +Next night the travellers were in Durham, but Shuttleworth said nothing +about their adventures there. On the following day they reached Prudhoe, +but Sir Thomas Percy was out hunting, and Shuttleworth did not see him +until 9 o’clock on the morning after he arrived. Shuttleworth presented +the letter and the token, and Sir Thomas told him he should receive his +answer in the afternoon. When Shuttleworth came again, Sir Thomas gave +him a verbal message that the Abbot should “make no resistance if any +commission came down from the King, but speak fair to such as should +come withal, for the Abbot had as many friends as any man, and if any +house should stand, his was like to do so.” Sir Thomas also told him to +desire Sir Stephen Hamerton’s best counsel for the Abbot and the house, +and as a token that the message came from Sir Thomas he was to say “that +I [Sir Thomas] spake to him at our last being together that he should be +good unto my lady my mother.”[449] + +Leache had not yet accomplished his ambiguous errand. After Shuttleworth +left Sir Thomas, Leache had an interview with the latter, but what +passed between them Shuttleworth did not know[450]. The two men went +back to Sawley together, but when the Abbot was told who Leache was, he +ordered him to “avoid that quarter,” lest he should bring trouble upon +the house[451]. + +The supplication which aroused so much curiosity in Sir Thomas Percy’s +enemies afterwards fell into Norfolk’s hands[452]. It appears to be a +very harmless document. The monks of Sawley begged Sir Thomas to +consider their present need, and to let them know his pleasure for the +succour of their house. They feared their “most sinister back friend Sir +Arthur Darcy,” and wished to know whether Sir Thomas would advise them +to follow the counsel of the neighbouring commons and remain in their +house. Sir Stephen Hamerton and Nicholas Tempest had been true friends, +and the monks begged Sir Thomas to give them some reward, as they +themselves could requite them only by their prayers. The one passage to +which any seditious meaning could be attached ran as follows:—“The whole +noise and bruit in these parts is, the captain should have left and +discharged himself of the captainship, but also is judged and supposed +an order to be taken for religious houses suppressed, the farmers or +other to enter and occupy, and the abbot or prior and brethren to have +and taken at their delivery their necessaries, and so to be avoided of +possession unto the Parliament, whereof not only the place but also the +time is as yet not perceived to be; wherefore men’s hearts hath no +little suspect, vexation, and great disdain, in doubting the great +enormities and danger that may ensue and come to them.”[453] Even this, +which is the most incriminating part of the letter, is too vague to bear +any genuinely treasonable interpretation. The unfortunate monks, in +fact, only begged to be told what they ought to do, as they were quite +ready to submit to any orders which they might receive from a competent +authority; but no one was in a position to relieve their perplexity. The +Abbot was accused of being the author of the bills which were posted on +the church doors in the neighbourhood, but no evidence of this was +produced[454]. + +The most suspicious circumstance in the communications between Sir +Thomas Percy and the Abbot was the presence of William Leache. He was a +man of a savage, determined character. On this occasion he made his +escape to Scotland, but in 1541 he and another fugitive murdered +Somerset Herald near Dunbar, as he was returning from a mission to James +V. For this barbarous deed they were both surrendered to the English +government and executed[455]. It can have been with no very peaceful +object that such a man appeared at Sawley, visited Sir Thomas Percy, and +returned to Sawley again; but the nature of his errand was never +discovered. + +The gentlemen had accomplished a good deal in the week which followed +Bigod’s rising. They had arrested and examined most of his accomplices, +they were accumulating evidence against Sir Thomas Percy, and George +Lumley was a prisoner in York. The only remaining task was the capture +of Bigod himself. This did not appear to be a very difficult affair, as +everyone had turned against him. The gentlemen were trying to arrest him +as a rebel against the King, and the commons were ready to put him to +death as a traitor to the commons. + +The particulars of Sir Francis’ flight from Beverley on Friday 19 +January are not known, but the commons declared that he had deserted +them. His only idea was to go home again, and as he neared Settrington +he sent forward his horsekeeper Harry Soulay to discover how he would be +received. At Yeddingham Bridge Soulay heard the threats of the +disappointed rebels, and came back to warn his master to go no further. +Bigod took refuge at William Middlewood’s house in Ebberston, and sent +Soulay on again, with orders to go right to Settrington for news and to +return to Ebberston the same night. Before Soulay’s return Middlewood’s +brother-in-law came in and reported some of the angry sayings against +Sir Francis which he had heard by the way. Sir Francis was so much +alarmed that he set out again and rode all night for his castle at +Mulgrave. On the morning of Saturday 20 January he reached Sandsend, a +little village on the coast a couple of miles east of Mulgrave. Soulay, +on returning to Ebberston to find his master, was seized by the commons +and would have been beheaded if he had not been rescued by Sir George +Conyers. + +The feeling against Sir Francis was so strong that his inveterate enemy +Gregory Conyers for the moment took up the popular cause. His one object +was to be on the opposite side to Sir Francis, and consequently when the +latter changed sides, and again when both sides turned against him, +Gregory’s position was a complicated one. On Saturday 20 January he +proclaimed to the fishermen all along the coast that Sir Francis Bigod +was a traitor to the King and to the commons, and ordered them to keep +watch that he did not escape by sea[456]. This formula linking the King +and the commons was the usual one, which occurs in the Lincolnshire oath +and elsewhere. It does not imply that Gregory was commissioned to act +for the King. William Neville, brother of Lord Latimer, and Serjeant +Roger Middlewood went to Mulgrave to seize Bigod’s goods[457]. Gregory +Conyers arrived there shortly afterwards; hearing of the previous +seizure, he said to Bigod’s wife, “Madame, and here are twain come for +the commons,” and seized what remained in the commons’ name, on the +grounds that Sir Francis had betrayed them[458]. + +While this was going on Bigod was in hiding somewhere near his despoiled +castle. On Sunday 21 January Gregory Conyers went to Hinderwell in +search of him, warning all the country to give the fugitive no aid, but +at this point Gregory seems to have abandoned his alliance with the +commons, as he joined the King’s representatives, Neville and +Middlewood[459]. They were so close upon Bigod’s track that they +surprised him in his hiding-place, and Gregory seized him by his +sleeveless coat, but Bigod slipped off the loose garment and fled into +the woods on foot. His assailants had to be satisfied with the capture +of his servants and horses[460]. Dismounted as he was, Bigod eluded +pursuit for nearly three weeks[461]. + +On Thursday 25 January young Sir Ralph Evers reported to the King the +retaking of Scarborough and Bigod’s flight[462]. He petitioned Cromwell +to further his suit for Sir Francis’ lands[463]. Next day he wrote again +enclosing the names of those who had been rulers of the commons in the +last insurrection but had served the King well on this occasion. He +hoped that the King would acknowledge their services, and particularly +praised Sir John Bulmer’s son-in-law Matthew Boynton[464]. + +The King must have been pleased to find that his policy had produced +such excellent results. The breach between the gentlemen and the commons +was now complete. The former had been busy quieting the latter, while +Henry felt himself absolved by the rising from any obligation to keep +his promises. + +On receiving young Sir Ralph Ellerker’s report dated 20 January, the +King sent letters to both the writer and his father. He thanked them for +their services, sent money and ammunition, and gave permission for 100 +horsemen to be retained in Hull, but he was displeased that the +prisoners had been admitted to bail. He ordered that they should be +re-arrested and tried, and as many as possible executed; for this +purpose he sent a commission to the Ellerkers. These letters are +undated, but probably reached Hull before 24 January, the day of +Hallam’s trial[465]. John Eland was thanked and rewarded for his service +in taking Hallam[466]. + +Sir Arthur Darcy wrote to his father from court on 23 January that the +King had received Lord Darcy’s letters very graciously[467], and next +day Henry wrote himself to Darcy to thank him for his services and to +order him to victual Pontefract Castle secretly, so that he and his sons +might hold it if the people rose again[468]. On Thursday 25 January +Henry thanked Shrewsbury for his “discreet proceedings” in the “new +tragedy moved by that false traitor Bigod.”[469] The old Earl had +written to his master that he was very ill and feared he should “not +long be here.”[470] The King in reply sent him his own physician Dr +Butts, and expressed the hope that he would see and thank Shrewsbury in +person on “his repair into those parts, which, God willing, shall be +shortly.” The King repeated the contents of his letter to Darcy, and +declared that so long as Darcy did his duty, he would regard him with as +much favour as if the rebellion had never occurred[471]. Darcy’s pardon +was made out on 18 January[472]. + +The King wrote to Robert Aske on 24 January thanking him for his letter +and goodwill. Henry concluded by saying that he “would be glad to hear +of some special deed in answer to our expectations.”[473] The meaning of +this was clear. Aske was already regarded with suspicion in Yorkshire on +account of his intercourse with the King. If he took a leading part in +the capture and execution of the new rebels, his influence over the +commons would be completely destroyed. Then Henry, if he pleased, might +safely execute the discredited captain, or extend to him a contemptuous +pardon if he seemed likely to become a useful tool. Aske did not take +the hint. Throughout the rebellion he had been acting not for himself +but for his cause. He was entirely opposed to Bigod’s attempt, because +he saw that it was foolish, useless, and dangerous. As he held this +opinion he did his best to suppress the movement, but he was full of +pity for the unfortunate men who had taken part in it. His voice was +always on the side of mercy. He advised that Bigod’s messengers should +be released from Hull, that the prisoners should be bailed, and that +Hallam’s execution should be delayed in the hope of a pardon. Several of +those who had been with Bigod threw themselves upon Aske’s mercy, and he +promised to try to procure their pardon[474]. + +Perhaps Aske still believed in the King’s humane intentions, but it is +scarcely possible that he should have kept this illusion after Henry’s +letter, particularly in face of the opposite conduct of the other +gentlemen. They for the most part realised that they had made their +choice between the King and the cause, and that it remained for them to +make themselves secure with the King by denouncing others. Beneath the +steady stream of gracious messages which still flowed down from the +court, there is an eddy in the opposite direction of messages vaguely or +definitely hostile to the former leaders of the Pilgrimage, sent up by +their former comrades. + +Eland and Knolles had taken an active part in the surrender of Hull to +the insurgents, but they had now redeemed their characters by capturing +Hallam. Sir Ralph Ellerker had been one of the messengers to the King, +and Nicholas Rudston had been the chief captain of Holderness, but they +were now anxious to retrieve themselves by implicating Sir Robert +Constable in the new rising. They discovered a means by which this might +be done in the letter which Aske and Constable had written to Rudston +before Bigod’s flight from Beverley; it contained the advice that +Bigod’s messengers should be released, as they had only done their +master’s errand[475]. The letter was delivered to Rudston on the morning +of Friday 19 January, just before the advance on Beverley; after the +gentlemen had entered the town Rudston showed the letter to young Sir +Ralph Ellerker whom he met on Westwood Green. Rudston read it aloud in +the presence of two of Sir Robert’s servants, who perceived that it was +considered treasonable[476]. + +On Saturday 20 January at Hull Sir Ralph Ellerker caused his chaplain to +make a copy of the letter to be sent up to the King, while Rudston went +to dine with Sir Robert Constable on Sunday 21 January. Constable’s +servants must have warned him that the letter was being used against +him, for he asked Rudston to show it to him, and inquired what fault he +found with it. Rudston seems to have implied that it was a very faulty +performance in every respect, but he said, “The greatest fault that Sir +Ralph Ellerker and I do find is against the messengers that ye write +for.” Sir Robert unwisely attempted a prevarication, saying that there +was no harm in that, for he meant Langdale and Horskey, who went to Hull +to buy their Lenten store. Rudston answered that Sir Ralph Ellerker +thought that he had meant Bigod’s messengers. Sir Robert retorted with +an oath, “And if so, what harm?” and gave back the letter. Later in the +day he asked Rudston to show the letter to Dr Waldby. Rudston handed it +over, and Sir Robert stood talking about it beside the Doctor. Presently +he took it out of Waldby’s hands “and conveyed it into his bosom or +sleeve.” Rudston saw this, but pretended to notice nothing. Happening to +find Waldby by himself, Rudston asked him whom Sir Robert had really +meant, and Waldby admitted that the allusion was to Bigod’s messengers. +The conclusion is rather humorous: + + “Within a while I [Rudston] put my hand into my bosom and said, as if + speaking to myself, ‘What have I done with the letter?’ adding, + ‘Marry, Mr Constable hath it himself.’ The Doctor said, ‘Even so hath + he.’ And forasmuch as I did somewhat mistrust the said Sir Robert, and + perceived indeed that he had conveyed the letter, I durst not ask the + letter of the said Sir Robert, and specially because I was sure of a + copy.”[477] + +Rudston might well be afraid of Sir Robert; it is a matter for wonder +that he had sufficient impudence to go and dine at his house, when he +was doing his best to ruin him. It was unfortunate for his case that Sir +Robert tried to prevaricate about the persons mentioned in his letter, +as he was afterwards accused of having asked Rudston to deliver +Hallam[478]. Constable could never have imagined that he could procure +Hallam’s release by letter; such an attempt would have been both +treasonable and useless, but the ambiguity of his phrase enabled his +accusers to read that meaning into the words. + +For some reason, both Aske and Constable were firmly convinced that Sir +Ralph Ellerker had brought north a letter from the King. Constable asked +to be allowed to read it in his letter about the messengers[479]. On +Sunday 21 January Aske, who had returned from Holme to Aughton, wrote to +ask Ellerker to send him a copy of the mythical letter from the King. +Aske’s request has not been preserved. Sir Ralph Ellerker replied that +he had no such letter; his conclusion is curious: “I will be glad to +confer with you at Ellerker if you will send me word, for I am not so +good a clerk as to read your letter perfectly.”[480] Aske’s letter was +probably the one in which he recommended Ellerker not to execute Hallam +while the north was still so much disturbed, and this passage in +Ellerker’s reply must be an allusion to the same dangerous subject. +Ellerker was collecting evidence against Constable; he may have wished +to entrap Aske also, but it is possible to give him the benefit of the +doubt. The Ellerkers had an old feud with Sir Robert Constable, which +revived as soon as the enforced truce of the Pilgrimage ended, but the +Ellerkers and the Askes were friends and related by marriage. Young Sir +Ralph never produced Aske’s letter as evidence against him, and his +comment on the letter which he could not read perfectly may have been +meant as a warning that there was something in the letter which ought +not to have been written. In response to this invitation Aske set out +for Ellerker. On the way he met William Levening and one Fulthorp, who +appealed to him to help them, as they had been forced to take part in +Bigod’s rising against their will. Levening said that he had already +been to Sir Robert Constable and to Lord Darcy, in order to enlist their +sympathy. Both he and Fulthorp promised, if Aske would take their names, +to be ready to appear before Norfolk whenever he summoned them. Aske +undertook to do his best for them, and afterwards requested William +Babthorpe to lay their case before the Duke[481]. + +The gentlemen who had been loyal throughout the insurrection were now +busily accumulating evidence against the late leaders. Sir Henry Saville +on 29 January sent to Cromwell a letter from the Vicar of Brayton which +showed that the Vicar had acted by Aske’s orders. Sir Henry mentioned a +summons which Darcy had sent out to the gentlemen of the Honour of +Pontefract, calling them to assemble at Pontefract Castle. Before they +came he had surrendered the castle, and on their arrival they all took +the Pilgrims’ oath. Sir Henry Saville reported that there had been riots +between the servants of the Abbot of Kirkstall and those of Sir +Christopher Danby. His advice was that the abbot should be deposed, and +he suggested that the real movers in the last insurrection had never +appeared, but “had set light persons on to prove the country.”[482] + +The easiest way for anyone to prove his loyalty was by accusing someone +else, and Sir George Darcy reported that there were “great exclamations +against Aske.” The King’s orders to Darcy to hold Pontefract Castle with +his two sons, though put in the form of a compliment, were really a +source of strife, for Lord Darcy found it impossible to work with Sir +George Darcy, who did his best to obtain evidence against his father. +Through Shrewsbury’s mediation, Sir George had a fairly amicable meeting +with his father on Friday 26 January[483], but as soon as the King’s +orders concerning Pontefract arrived, about Monday 29 January, trouble +followed. On receipt of the King’s letter, Sir George wrote to his +father to ask him what he meant to do. Darcy replied that he did not +wish to make preparations until Sir George came in person to see the +letter which he had received, and that as Norfolk was expected on +Saturday 3 February, and as the country was quiet, he thought that there +would be no harm in waiting until Norfolk arrived before doing +anything[484]. In fact this cunningly framed compliment placed Darcy in +such a position that whatever he did could be used as evidence against +him. If he set to work energetically to provision Pontefract Castle, he +would be accused of preparing for a new insurrection, but when he chose +the other course of doing nothing without express orders, he was +represented as being slack and reluctant in the King’s service. + +As soon as Lord Darcy had declared his opinion, Sir George took the +opposite side. He wrote back on Tuesday 30 January that the country was +far from quiet and that he dared not wait the three days which must +elapse before Norfolk arrived without beginning to prepare the castle; +neither did he dare to leave the castle even for the few hours which +were required for a visit to Templehurst, and he therefore refused to +come to his father to see the King’s letter. This was the point at which +matters stood when Norfolk arrived at Doncaster. + +Before the Duke reached the north, Cromwell sent an agent of his own, +Sir Ralph Sadler, to see how the land lay. Sir Ralph’s ostensible +mission was to go to Scotland and to demand from the government the +surrender of the Lincolnshire fugitives[485], but with this he combined +the duty of writing careful reports on the state of the disaffected +districts. On Tuesday 23 January he reached York. He heard many rumours +on the road of fresh risings further north, and found that there were +bills on all the church doors between Doncaster and York, urging the +commons to stick together as the gentlemen had deceived them. All the +country through which he had passed was quiet, but if there were a new +insurrection, the people would take the part of the army which arrived +first, to save their goods. + +Sadler talked with many of the “honest householders,” who declared that +Aske had caused the first rising by spreading bills that the parish +churches should be pulled down, and that taxes were to be levied on +marriages, burials, and christenings. They were also positive that the +gentlemen had been willing enough to take part in the rising. “Why,” +quoth Sadler, “the gentlemen were taken by the commons and compelled to +be their captains.” “Yea, yea,” was the reply, “an the gentlemen had +been as they should be they might have stayed them well enough at the +first; but when the gentlemen took their parts, then such poor men as we +be could do no less than do as they did or else have been spoiled of all +that we have.” Sadler was particularly intimate with the hosts of the +various inns at which he stayed. The host of the village inn has always +been an oracle of almost equal authority with the village priest. At +Tadcaster Sadler’s host, a merry fellow, said to him, “Why, how say ye +to my lord Darcy? Did he not turn to the commons as soon as they came to +Pontefract and took their part? And yet being within the castle he might +have resisted them if they had been ten times as many as they +were.”[486] When the King was receiving such reports, it was not very +likely that he would keep his promise to take the first insurrection +“but for a dream.”[487] + +Sadler wrote again on 28 January from Newcastle. A day or two before he +set out on his journey, there had been great danger of a new rising in +Cleveland, owing to bills which were scattered abroad to warn the people +that the Duke of Norfolk was coming with a great army “to hang and draw +from Doncaster to Berwick,” so that the north would be “brought in worse +case than the Lincolnshire men.” The rising had been prevented by Robert +Bowes, who was travelling all over the district to quiet the people. +Sadler remarked that as the gentlemen had been able to repress the +present attempt, they could have dealt with the first rebellion just as +easily if they had wished. In spite of the recent disturbance, all the +country through which he had passed was quiet except Darlington, where +he had spent a night and found the people very “tickle.” He alighted at +his inn at about 6 o’clock, and saw not more than three or four people +in the street, but he had scarcely mounted the stairs to his room, when +thirty or forty armed men had gathered round the inn door, “and stood +together in a plompe whispering and rounding together.” Sadler, as +usual, had recourse to the host, “who seemed to be an honest man.” He +said that the townsfolk always assembled when any traveller came from +the south, because they wanted to hear the news. Sadler admonished him +that the town authorities ought not to permit such unlawful assemblies. +The host replied that the heads of the town dared not for their lives +interfere, but that no harm would come of it. “Quoth he, ‘Ye shall see +that I shall cause them to scatter abroad, and every man to go to his +home by and by.’ ‘Mary,’ quoth I, ‘if ye do well, ye should set some of +them by the heels.’ ‘No,’ quoth he, ‘God defend, for so might we bring a +thousand in our tops within an hour; but ye shall see me order them well +enough with fair words.’” Then he went down into the street with his cap +in his hand, and assured them that the new-comer was one of the King’s +servants on an embassy to Scotland. The crowd replied that this could +not be true, because the King of Scotland was in France, which indicates +a very low state of political knowledge. The host, however, persuaded +them that his story was true, and they all with one voice asked when the +Duke of Norfolk was coming and with what company. The host came back to +Sadler to ask his opinion on this subject. Sadler by this time was +converted to the host’s policy of fair words, and replied that Norfolk +would be at Doncaster on Candlemas Eve, with none but his household +servants. This contented the people and they dispersed, but the +occurrence had impressed Sadler: “I assure your lordship the people be +very tickle, and methinks in a marvellous strange case and perplexity; +for they stare and look for things, and fain would have they cannot tell +what.” From Darlington Sadler went to Durham, where he met Bowes, and +thence to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where the mayor and aldermen maintained +very good order; they showed him how strong the town was, and he +remained there waiting for a safe-conduct from Scotland[488]. + +On his way through Cleveland, Sadler had stayed at Wilton Castle, where +Sir William, brother of Sir John Bulmer, was constable. Soon after +Sadler left, another traveller from London arrived. This was Thomas +Fulthorp, a servant of young Ralph Bulmer, who was bringing a letter +from his master to Sir John. Fulthorp told Sir William that the Duke of +Norfolk “was not in so good favour with the King as the north country +took him to be”; in other words, the Duke’s influence was not sufficient +to make the King observe the appointment at Doncaster. Sir William did +not believe this, because Sadler had told him the contrary[489]. + +Fulthorp then went on to Lastingham, where Sir John Bulmer was living. +Soon after he reached home, one of Sir John’s servants brought a +terrified letter to Wilton. Ralph, who had gone up to London to discover +the King’s real intentions, sent word that thirty ships were being +prepared to sail against the north, that Aske and Sir George Darcy had +accused several people, including Lord Darcy and Sir Robert Constable, +and that Norfolk was coming with the worst intentions. Sir John begged +his brother to lay a watch along the coasts and to prepare beacons, and +warned him not to leave his house “for no fair letters nor words”[490] +Sir William may have been used to his brother’s panics, for he paid so +little attention to the letter that he did not even trouble to destroy +it[491]. + +Although Sir John was afraid of fair letters and words, he was also +alarmed because he had not been summoned to meet the Duke of Norfolk. He +wrote to Sir Ralph Evers to inquire the meaning of this, and received a +comforting reply. The Duke meant to send for him; the arrangement at +London was that either Sir John should attend the Duke with ten servants +or his brother Sir William with six[492]. Somewhat relieved, Sir John +agreed that his brother should go[493]. + +Until he could make up his mind what to do, Sir John had been trying to +keep the commons quiet, but his servants attended their musters, and he +had made quite a collection of their treasonable bills, with the +intention of using them in any way that would serve his own interest. +One of these bills originated at Kendal. It was a semi-rhyming +production, which urged the commons to insist upon having their old +customs and tenant right, “to take your farms by a God’s penny, all +gressoms and heightenings to be laid down.” It expressed the general +idea that the lords and gentlemen had undertaken a pilgrimage to protect +Holy Church, and that the commons would support them if they would grant +the commons’ demands concerning rent and ingressum[494]. It was shown to +Sir John by Priestman, a fugitive from Lincolnshire, who asked him how +he liked it. Sir John replied, “Marry, very well, for when two dogs +fight for a bone the third will take it up; for this will make the +gentlemen and the commons fall forth, and the King shall take up the +matter.” A second bill came from the south and began, “Good Northern +men, stick to your matter, for the lord of Norfolk comes to beguile +you”; it continued with a repetition of Norfolk’s promises, which he had +not performed. A third bill ordered the men of Cleveland to take Sir +William Bulmer and Sir James Strangways, and the men of the Bishopric to +take the Earl of Westmorland, Lord Lumley and Lord Neville, while the +men of Pickering and Blackmoor would seize Sir John Bulmer, and all the +bands would advance to capture the Duke and force him to keep the +promises which he made at Doncaster[495]. + +This scheme had a particular fascination for Sir John. It had originally +been devised by Sir Francis Bigod. The plan seems to have been that +Richmondshire should rise as soon as Norfolk reached Doncaster. He would +probably hurry forward with no troops but his escort, and might be +attacked by the men of Cleveland as he went up from the plain of York +into the Hambleton Hills about Byland[496]. Two men of Bilsdale came to +Sir John to propose this plot. They brought a list of articles similar +to those which were circulating in Richmond “for the swearing of all +lords and gentlemen or their sons or else to strike off their heads.” +Sir John was to take up his abode at Wilton Castle, when the commons of +Guisborough would capture him by arrangement, and he would then go with +them to seize the Duke. His wife knew of this plot and did not advocate +lenient measures. “She said divers times that if the Duke’s head were +off, Sir Ralph Evers’ and Sir Ralph Ellerker’s men might go where they +would.”[497] Before any steps were taken to put this plot into practice, +Sir William Bulmer visited Lastingham on his way to Doncaster, and +convinced his brother that so long as they remained quiet they had +nothing to fear. Sir John handed over to him his collection of bills, in +order that they might be laid before the Duke. He reversed his tactics, +suppressed the musters of the commons, and for a short time lived in +comparative security[498]. + +Sir John Bulmer’s is an extreme case of the uneasiness which filled all +the northern gentlemen, as they awaited the Duke of Norfolk. They felt +that, like the knight of the legend, they had blown the horn without +drawing the sword, and they were now unarmed at the mercy of an opponent +whose next move was incalculable. + +NOTES TO CHAPTER XVII + + Note A. “Naught” in Henry VIII’s reign usually meant “evil,” as it + does here; similarly “naughty” has a much stronger meaning than at the + present day and is equivalent to “wicked,” not to “mischievous.” + + Note B. This was not really inconsistent with the fact that Hallam was + to attempt to take Hull before Bigod arrived, for after securing the + town he intended to advance to meet Bigod at Beverley. + + Note C. The original of Sir Francis Bigod’s letter to the bailiffs of + Scarborough has disappeared, but it is printed in Speed’s “Great + Britain,” book IX, chapter 21, as follows: + + “To the Bailiffs and Commons of the Town of Scarborough. + + Wellbeloved, we Francis Bigod, Knight, and John Hallam, Yeoman, in + the name of all the commons, command and charge you that ye assemble + yourselves together immediately upon receipt hereof, and so take + this oath which we here send unto you, and then after in all haste + possible to assist and aid these our brethren whom we send to you to + keep and make sure the Castle, Town and Port of Scarborough, that no + man enter into the same Castle that belongs unto Ralph Evers the + younger, Knight, nor any other which did not take full part with the + commons at our first and last assembling, in whose name, authority + or attorney soever they come, unless they have licence of all the + commons; in like manner ye shall truly keep all such ordnance and + ship[s] to the use of the commons, with which we charged you at our + last being here, and this not to fail, upon pain of your lives. Ye + shall refer credence unto these messengers, thus in haste: Fare you + well. + + From Setterington this Monday Saint Maurus’ day[499]. Francis + Bigod Knight, in the name and by commandment of all the commons.” + + Note D. This letter is dated 18 January, but endorsed 17 January, and + the latter appears to be the more probable date. + + Note E. It was afterwards alleged that Aske had written to Bigod + promising that Hallam should be released, but no trace of this letter + remains[500]. The two letters upon which the prosecution based the + charge are both fully discussed in the text; they were (1) Sir Robert + Constable’s letter for the release of Bigod’s messengers, and (2) + Aske’s lost letter for the delay of Hallam’s execution. The + prosecution, which was not at all scrupulous in its methods, combined + these two letters and asserted that Aske had written either to request + or to promise that Hallam should be released, thus producing a charge + of treason out of two harmless documents. + + Note F. Sir Ralph Ellerker reported that Boynton arrived on the + 20th[501], but he signed a letter at Beverley on the 19th[502]. + + Note G. In the summary of the evidence and in Norfolk’s letter it is + said that “Hallam” accused the monks of Watton[503], but this is a + mistake; it was the prisoners who were examined at the same time as + Hallam who accused them. It is perhaps scarcely necessary to say that + the leader of a rebellion is often mentioned loosely as having done + actions for which his followers were really responsible. A well-known + name is attached by rumour to the deeds or words of obscure persons, + and instances have already been given in which Robert Aske was + supposed to have written letters or issued manifestoes with which, in + fact, he had nothing to do. Hallam’s is a similar case. + + Note H. The supplication of the abbot and monks of Sawley is printed + among the Letters and Papers of October 1536, but this is evidently + too early, as its real date was either the end of December 1536 or the + beginning of January 1536–7. The reference in it to the fact that the + captain had laid down his office shows that it was written after the + second appointment at Doncaster and that it is, in fact, the same + document which was carried by Shuttleworth to Sir Thomas Percy. The + summary in the Letters and Papers is a good deal more definite than + the vague rambling clauses of the original. + + + + + CHAPTER XVIII + THE DUKE OF NORFOLK’S MISSION + + +While these things were happening in the north, the Duke of Norfolk, so +urgently needed and so long expected, was living quietly at Kenninghall +in his own county. His orders directed him to go northwards at +Candlemas, and he had no intention of stirring before that time. On 6 +January 1536–7 he wrote to Cromwell; as the quarter sessions were about +to be held at Norwich, he suggested that the commissioners of the +subsidy and of the suppression who attended them should be ordered to +proceed with their work, which had been suspended during the rebellion. +The religious living in the houses which ought to be suppressed were a +great cost to the King, and if they were allowed to remain and the +subsidy was not levied, it “might put folly into the light northern +heads.”[504] + +On 16 January Norfolk was with the King at Greenwich, receiving +instructions for his mission to the north. Considering that the news of +Hallam’s attempt had not yet reached the King, these instructions were +severe, and showed little prospect that the King would fulfil the +promises which he had made to Robert Aske a few days before. Norfolk was +to go to the counties recently disturbed, accompanied by a council, and +there to take such steps as the King thought necessary for their final +settlement. His first stopping-place was at Doncaster, where the most +trustworthy of the northern gentlemen would meet him. He was to +administer to them the King’s oath, and then to summon the gentlemen of +the district, and, when they had taken the oath, the commons. Everyone +must take the oath in turn, and this procedure must be followed at every +place where the Duke halted. + +After Doncaster the Duke would proceed to Pontefract, and, when the West +Riding had taken the oath, to York, where he was to be met by the +remaining leaders of the Pilgrimage and all other gentlemen of +importance. Thence he would travel through all the country that had +risen, administering the oath and enlarging upon the King’s wonderful +clemency and goodness to his disobedient subjects. He was to reproach +the justices of the peace with their lack of vigilance, and to let them +see that they were blamed for the disturbances. Any loyal subjects suing +for restitution of goods taken during the period covered by the pardon +were to be put off with fair answers, and asked to wait until the coming +of the King; neither they nor the present holders of the goods must be +driven to despair. + +The Duke was to make every effort to search out the beginners of the +insurrections, the devisers of the articles, and the real reasons of the +outbreak. Any man who refused to take the oath must be executed if +Norfolk dared to proceed to extremes. If the attitude of the people +forbade severity, “he shall pretend to make light of such a fool and +proceed to swearing the rest till a better opportunity.” + +When the whole country was sworn, the next step was to turn out the +monks, nuns, and canons who still occupied suppressed houses, and to put +the farmers in possession. As the Duke himself had promised to make suit +to the King that they might remain till the next parliament, he was to +explain to the people “how far they vary from true religious men, yea, +from true subjects.” + +Norfolk must see that the King’s rents were collected and order other +men’s tenants to pay their landlords; but he must also inquire into the +matter of enclosures and fines, hear complaints about them, and mediate +between gentlemen and tenants, in order that they “may live together as +they be joined in one body politic.” This clause in the instructions had +a double object; “the King’s instructions to Norfolk, under their fair +show of conciliatory words, by enjoining the reception of complaints +against enclosures, were deftly intended to widen the breach between the +confederated classes of the north.”[505] + +As it was through ignorance that the north had been seduced into +horrible treason, the King intended “to send thither certain grave, +discreet and learned personages to teach and preach the truth” and the +Duke must recommend them to the people. + +Finally Norfolk was to sit on cases of common justice, and all offenders +since the pardon were to be sought out and executed, “if it may be done +without danger, especially if they have been ringleaders.” If there was +danger, he must simply “look through his fingers at their offences, and +free them to continue till the King’s Majesty’s arrival in those parts,” +taking care that they did not fly the country[506]. + +The government seems to have felt the difficulty of finding a form of +words suitable for the oath which was to alter all the feelings, aims +and ideals of the Pilgrims, to make them forget their vow to God and the +Commonwealth, and to induce them to concentrate their allegiance upon +the King. The form must be as sweeping as the King dared to make it, and +yet must not go too far. The drafts of the oath remain[507], and the +last, which is the simplest, was probably the one used. “You shall swear +to be true liegeman to the King our sovereign lord, Henry VIII King of +England and of France, etc,”[508] it began, sliding over the obnoxious +title of Supreme Head of the Church, which is inserted in another draft. +Those who took the oath swore to do no treason, murder or felony, but to +discover the doers of such crimes; to renounce the oaths taken during +the insurrection, and in future to resist such movements; to be obedient +to the King, his lieutenant, and all his laws. Several irritating items +in the other drafts are omitted in this, such as expressions of +contrition and desire of forgiveness for the rising, and a declaration +of willingness to assist the commissioners in the suppression of the +abbeys. With these drafts for the oath is a set of instructions for its +administration. Every man was required to “confess and knowledge” his +traitorous demeanour and submit himself to the King’s mercy: he was then +to declare the names of the rebel leaders, and to give up his arms in +token of complete submission; finally he was to take the King’s oath and +to hold all others vain[509]. It is, however, practically certain that +these instructions were not carried out, as the Duke of Norfolk did not +disarm the north, and could not have done so without the greatest +danger. + +On 16 January 1536–7 the King sent out letters to various gentlemen +ordering them to be in readiness to attend the Duke on his northern +progress[510]. One was addressed to Sir Robert Constable, who was to +meet Norfolk in York; another to Lord Darcy, who was to await him at +Pontefract[511]. Norfolk summoned Sir William Fairfax and Sir Oswald +Wolsthrope, who were trusted by the government, to meet him at Doncaster +on Candlemas Eve (1 February) with all their servants, unharnessed[512]. + +After his visit to court, Norfolk returned to Kenninghall to prepare for +his journey at leisure. He was there when the news of Bigod’s rebellion +reached him. All accounts agreed in attributing the new outbreak to his +long delay[513], but the Duke was not disturbed on that account; he had +his orders and he was obeying them. It is probable that he was expecting +some such news. + +On 28 January old Sir Marmaduke Constable’s eldest son was with him, +bringing from the north a full account of all that had taken place. He +showed Norfolk a copy of the manifesto sent out by his uncle Sir Robert +Constable and Aske to stay the parts about Beverley. “He has written +more than I can perform,” said Norfolk in a letter to Cromwell, “and his +large sayings might be for a scant good purpose about the coronation and +parliament, etc.” Yet they were given on the authority of the King’s own +words. Norfolk congratulated Cromwell on the news. If the country were +settled before he reached the north he would grudge no man the praise; +if something were left to be done he would show his goodwill. “This +young man [Constable’s nephew] cannot speak too much good of my lord +Darcy and his uncle; sickness now hath kept them both at home, which +could not do so at the first business at Doncaster.”[514] Norfolk was in +bad health, “but desire to serve my master and anger mine enemies will, +I trust, make me shortly strong and lusty.”[515] By way of precaution he +sent to Cromwell his will and the details of a whole string of suits +which he hoped Cromwell would forward in his absence. Fortunately we +have no concern with the family affairs of the wicked old Duke. A +proverb which he quoted, “God shall send a shrewd cow short horns,” +unhappily was not true in his own case[516]. + +On 30 January Norfolk was in Lincoln on his way to Doncaster. Here he +met messengers with letters for the King from Hull, which he opened to +see if they contained anything urgent; but all was going well. Several +canons of Watton and others implicated in Hallam’s rebellion had been +captured. Norfolk wrote to ask the King if the prisoners should be +executed in York, and how many the King desired him to “justify.” He had +also received letters from the Bishop of Durham, Lord Scrope, and the +Earl of Cumberland. Norfolk thought that the timid bishop was +over-anxious about the state of the country, but to satisfy him he +promised to go to Newcastle-upon-Tyne after he had settled +Yorkshire[517]. Cumberland and Scrope both enclosed seditious bills, and +the latter reported from Bolton that the country was much stirred by +such writings, which “misdeedy” persons sent about, though the honest +men were content to wait for the parliament[518]. + +Norfolk was puzzled by learning on the road that Sir Anthony Browne had +just ridden northwards on a mission from the King. The Duke had been +told nothing of this, and as he was the King’s Lieutenant in the north, +he marvelled that the matter had not been laid before him. The Privy +Council were writing to him on the subject that same day, 30 +January[519]. The office of Warden of the Marches was vacant, owing to +the ill-health of the Earl of Northumberland. The King had proposed to +bestow it on the Earl of Westmorland, but the Earl was exceedingly +anxious to escape from such a difficult and dangerous post. Henry had no +intention of increasing the Earl of Cumberland’s power, for it was +already too great for the peace of his neighbours. Therefore he +determined to adopt some old advice of Norfolk’s, and, keeping the +office of warden in his own hands, to appoint meaner men as his +deputies. He had chosen Sir William Evers and Sir John Widderington; Sir +Anthony Browne had been sent down post to receive their oaths and give +them their instructions. A later chapter will be devoted to the +government of the Borders and relations with Scotland[520], but Sir +Anthony Browne’s mission is mentioned here in order to emphasise the +double nature of Norfolk’s task. The King had entrusted to him the +subjection of the rebellious counties and the punishment of the men with +whom he was supposed to sympathise. This is the part of his duty which +concerns us at present. The King did not trust to Norfolk alone the +establishment of order on the Marches. He had not even explained to him +the new arrangements before the Duke set out, but none the less Henry +expected Norfolk to help the matter forward. He could not do without his +lieutenant, although he did not trust him. Norfolk knew how extremely +dangerous this position was. The King asked his advice, and did not take +it; the King needed his presence on the Borders for the furtherance of +his plans, but he did not confide those plans to the Duke. In Yorkshire +Norfolk knew what was expected of him and intended to do it; in +Northumberland he was to do nothing without explicit orders. + +Norfolk reached Doncaster punctually on Candlemas Eve, 1 February +1536–7. He was met there by the gentlemen whom he could best trust with +their servants. Among those who welcomed him were Sir Marmaduke +Constable the younger, Sir Robert’s son, and William Babthorpe, Aske’s +kinsman. They brought a message to the Duke from Aske, who wished to +know if Norfolk desired his presence. Babthorpe wrote that night to Aske +that the Duke expected to meet him in York, but not sooner. He was not +to be disheartened if the Duke showed him “no very friendly +countenance.” It would be for certain reasons which would be opened to +him in secret. Old Sir Marmaduke Constable, who had lately been at +court, was assured that Aske possessed Norfolk’s favour and that the +King and Council esteemed his services[521]. + +Aske was only too anxious to believe such assurances. He had spoken to +the King, and had been convinced of his graciousness and good faith. He +had returned to the north to find the whole country equally convinced +that they had been beguiled. He was not unmoved by this; his letters to +the King himself show that he was sometimes beset by doubts, but the +belief of a man like Aske in one who has secured his loyalty and trust +is very hard to shake. When Aske used every means to quiet the +agitation, when he declared Bigod’s attempt disloyal not only to the +King but to the Pilgrims’ cause, he was pledging his honour to his +followers that the King was true. On that he staked everything, +including his life. He clung to his belief and went on hoping against +hope until the very end. Yet there was no lack of warning; the matter +was plain to all who could look on unconcerned. For example, Ralph +Sadler had carried special orders by word of mouth to Sir Thomas +Clifford, the captain of Berwick, concerning the Percys. Clifford was +first to send them letters from the King which summoned them to his +presence; if they did not immediately obey he was to arrest them and +send them by sea from Berwick to Grimsby, to avoid the danger of rescue +if they passed through the northern shires as prisoners[522]. + +Sir Thomas Clifford met Sadler at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 28 January, and +was more worried than surprised by these secret instructions. The matter +had leaked out, in spite of precautions, and Sir Thomas Hilton had told +him a week before that he would be commanded to arrest the Percys. The +rumour was bruited abroad in the country, and Clifford knew that if it +came to the ears of those most nearly concerned he would be in danger of +his life. As he heard that the Percys were preparing to go to meet +Norfolk at Doncaster, he sent them the King’s letters. They had already +set out before the letters arrived, and Clifford was spared further +embarrassment, and was able to declare that he would have risked +everything to carry out the King’s commands. The royal letters reached +the Percys at Doncaster[523], and with the recklessness of their race +Sir Thomas and Sir Ingram obeyed the summons to London. They scarcely +needed the Duke’s wily encouragement, though he provided them with a +letter recommending them to the Council, which, as he was careful to +explain in another despatch, was not to be taken seriously[524]. Before +the week was out the two brothers were in the Tower. The other leaders +of the Pilgrimage did not take alarm. The Percys had behaved with utter +lawlessness, and many of their actions could not be connected with +forwarding the Pilgrims’ demands; moreover the King had special private +reasons for wishing them out of the way. Thus, no doubt, Aske and Darcy +explained the omen. + +Norfolk found the north in no very settled condition when he reached +Doncaster. Even in the country round him there was much sedition. He +sent Cromwell the rhyming prophecy about “a crumb well set in a man’s +throat.”[525] Bills were posted on the church doors, but they were all +of the type described above which called upon the commons to stick +together and choose their own leaders, as the gentlemen had betrayed +them. The King’s policy was a complete success; he had broken up the +alliance of rich and poor which had brought him into danger. Norfolk +found that he could trust almost all the gentlemen and rich yeomen +“which without doubt is most principally for their own safeguards, being +in the greatest fear of the people that ever I saw.”[526] They forgot +all grievances in anxiety for their property, and welcomed Norfolk as a +saviour from general anarchy. The Duke was satisfied that all would go +well. News of abortive risings came from Cleveland, Sheriffhutton, and +Middleham, but in each case the gentlemen had dispersed the rebels +without difficulty[527]. The only serious news was from the north and +west. Northumberland was a prey to the Border thieves, but they were a +separate problem. Cumberland and Westmorland were in commotion; the +tithe barns were seized and enclosures were pulled down. A great muster +had been ordered at Richmond by the secret leaders of the commons. + +Every sort of rumour agitated the country. At Cockermouth the people +said that the Duke of Norfolk would never be sent to them, for he was in +disgrace with the King[528]. In Cleveland it was rumoured that he “came +down with a great army and power to do execution, to hang and draw from +Doncaster to Berwick ... notwithstanding the King’s pardon.”[529] +Norfolk tried to inspire confidence by issuing a proclamation, as +Lieutenant-General from Trent northwards, prohibiting all assemblies, +ringing of alarm bells, lighting of beacons and setting up of bills on +posts and church doors without the King’s authority; he set forth that +Bigod and other traitors had falsely declared the King’s pardon void, +assured all men, by the King’s express command, that the pardon held +good, and offered £40 for the capture of Bigod and £20 each for that of +Leache, of Horncastle, Morland of Louth Park, and the friar of St +Robert’s of Knaresborough[530]. He thought that this proclamation would +prevent the threatened disturbances in Richmondshire[531]. + +Very little can be discovered about the musters at Richmond. The +depositions which remain are not so illuminating as they might be, since +the government persisted, for its own reasons, in regarding Jervaux +Abbey as the headquarters of the agitation. The monks played their part, +but the real plotters were shadowy characters who haunted the boundaries +of Yorkshire, moving from Richmond to Kirkby Stephen. Nicholas Musgrave +and Thomas Tibbey were two of these leaders on the Westmorland side. +Lobley, Servant and Hutton sent out the bills from Richmond[532]. + +On Saturday 3 February the bills and letters which were constantly +passing about the country took a more definite tone. These letters came +from Richmond and were passed from bailiff to bailiff; they bade every +parish send two representatives to meet at the Grey Friars’ at Richmond +on Monday 5 February, to consult “for the common wealth,” and +particularly to decide how they should treat with the Duke of Norfolk in +the matter of tithes. Collins, the bailiff of Kendal, was very earnest +in setting forward the matter in his part of the country, and sent on +the summons to Beetham, Windermere, and other parts. The meeting was +held, but Norfolk’s proclamation had reached Richmond, and the townsfolk +refused to have anything to do with the men from other districts. The +gentlemen had all gone to meet the Duke, and in consequence there was no +one in authority. The leaders of the commons proved incompetent at the +last. No conclusion was reached, and the assembly soon dispersed[533]. + +There are more details about the rising at Jervaux. The Abbot had lost +some sheep during the insurrection, and asked Edward Middleton, who had +been one of the rebel leaders, to seek for them, “because he was a +hunter.” About the middle of January he met Middleton in the abbey +church and asked for news of the sheep. Middleton said that he had done +his best, but he could not find them. “Ye have taken pains, although ye +could do no good,” said the Abbot, and told his “storer” to give the man +some drink money. The storer had no money, and the Abbot sent Middleton +to the cellarer, or the quondam Abbot of Fountains who was staying in +the house, to ask one of them to pay him[534]. A servant led Middleton +and Ninian Staveley, who was with him, to the quondam Abbot’s room, and +delivered the Abbot’s message that the quondam was to give the men forty +pence. William Thirsk the quondam abbot took out an angel noble and +asked Middleton to change it. Staveley snatched it and said it was +cracked. The quondam gave him another and bade him change that; but +Staveley calmly put the two nobles in his purse, saying, “Ye churls +monks, ye have too much and we have nothing, and neither of these thou +gettest again.” “Ye shall not have my money so,” cried the quondam, “If +ye be true men ye will not take my money away, and ye should have but +forty pence of me.” Middleton interfered, whispering that Staveley was +mad and that he would see the quondam’s money restored, and so they left +him[535]. According to Staveley the quondam Abbot offered them twenty +nobles to restore him to Fountains if there was a new insurrection. This +may be true or it may not. Staveley’s excuse for his violence was that +two of the monks of Jervaux, Roger Hartlepool and John Stainton, had +been urging both himself and Middleton to raise a company, fall upon the +Duke of Norfolk, and slay him, for they said that if Norfolk were +allowed to come peaceably “their abbey would be put down and they would +go a-begging.” The stories about the two nobles and the thirty sheep +point to the conclusion that Staveley and his friend were the men to +entrust with such a desperate scheme, and that they probably knew all +the bad characters in the Dales. + +In January the Abbot of Jervaux had sent a servant to gather the Abbey’s +rents in Lincolnshire; the man was also to tarry about Newark until the +Duke came and bring back word as to how large a force he brought with +him. The servant did not wait long enough to see the Duke’s train, but +he returned with the news “that the Lincolnshire men were busily hanged, +and their charter stood them in no stead,” and that Norfolk was coming +to do the same in the north. This spread dismay in the country[536]. +Lord Latimer left his house at Snape and with Sir Christopher Danby set +out for the court, which alarmed the commons, who were always ready to +listen to the cry that the gentlemen were betraying them, and at the +same time removed the men best able to keep order. The people were so +angry that they were ready to plunder the houses of the absentees[537]. + +When the news came that Norfolk had reached Doncaster, Staveley and his +accomplices determined to take action. On Sunday 4 February they set up +bills, provided by the two monks, on every church door in Richmondshire, +commanding every man between the ages of 16 and 20 to be at Middleham +Moor in harness on Tuesday next (6 February). On Monday the leaders +quarrelled among themselves, and the whole matter would have fallen +through, if the two monks had not come to Staveley’s bed at midnight, in +harness with battle-axes in their hands, and called upon him to rise and +go forward or else they would all be destroyed[538]. Staveley sent to +Middleton and they called together their friends and went to Jervaux +Abbey about midday. They bade the Abbot come forth with all his brethren +and go with them to the muster; but “the Abbot said and desired them to +be contented to leave his brethren at home and to take his servants with +them, and said further that he and all his brethren would come unto them +next day. And then he gave the company such meat and drink as he had.” +The muster at Middleham Moor was poorly attended. Staveley and his band, +the Abbot’s servants, and a few of the Abbot’s tenants of Witton were +the only companies mentioned as being present. The leaders stayed there +two or three hours, but when news came of the failure of the meeting at +Richmond on the day before they all went home[539]. The Abbot of Jervaux +fled next day to Lord Scrope at Bolton Castle; there is no proof that he +knew of the plans of his monks. Middleton and Roger Hartlepool the monk +fled to Scotland, thereby showing more prudence than the majority of the +captains[540]. + +On Sunday 4 February Norfolk was at Pontefract. In spite of the unruly +state of the north-west he was in good spirits, and trusted soon to have +it in more quietness. As long as the gentlemen were so thoroughly afraid +of their own tenants there was no chance of serious rebellion[541]. Lord +Latimer had been appointed to meet Norfolk in York, “but he liked so ill +his being at home” that he came to meet the Duke at Doncaster. Lord +Conyers was in doubt as to whether his people would let him leave home +at all. None of the gentlemen dared attempt to turn the religious out of +the restored abbeys; Norfolk could hardly persuade them to pursue the +leaders of the late commotions, not because they sympathised with them, +but because they were afraid the people would attack them[542]. + +All the country about Pontefract was in good order when Norfolk +arrived[543]. Darcy took some pride in this, but really it told against +him. If he could keep his country quiet when he liked, why had he failed +on the first rising? When Norfolk reached the castle, he found himself +in the middle of a family quarrel. Lord Darcy had come up from +Templehurst to meet him, and had joined issue with Sir George Darcy, +whom he found in possession. Lord Darcy refused to share his authority +with his son; he would be the sole keeper of the castle or not at all. +Sir George had the King’s orders and would not give way unless the Duke +commanded him to do so. In the end Norfolk decided in favour of Darcy, +who undertook to lie in the castle himself and put the King to no +expense; but Sir George was to be ready to come in with all his power at +an hour’s warning. Norfolk trusted Sir George, who would serve the King +against his father and all the world. “I pray God the father be as good +in heart as the son, which by the proof only I shall believe.”[544] + +Norfolk went on to York, probably on Monday 5 February. Here he was met +by almost all the gentlemen of Yorkshire, the very men who had held the +council there as leaders of the Pilgrimage two months before. The oath +was administered in the Duke’s presence to the head men of the city and +of all the three Ridings; it was taken without the least dissent or +opposition. The gentlemen were to carry back the oath to the districts +which Norfolk did not intend to visit, but it was by no means certain +that the business would be accomplished so quietly in those parts. He +wrote to the King on 7 February from York, where he was to sit on the +indictments of eighteen persons, spiritual and temporal, on Saturday 10 +February; he thought that many would be found guilty and trusted shortly +to have more[545]. On Friday the 9th, in the midst of his session work, +he found time to answer a letter from Cromwell. He was glad to receive +Cromwell’s assurances of friendship, and begged that he might soon hear +good news of his various suits and causes. In order to show that the +friendship was not all on one side, he narrated how he had “caused one +of the sheriff’s officers to be set in the pillory and for ever put out +of office for speaking ill of Cromwell. If the matter would have served +by law he should, on Tuesday next, have stretched a halter with +others.”[546] + +On Saturday 10 February Sir Francis Bigod was taken by Sir John +Lamplough and a party which Norfolk had sent out to capture him on +information received from Sir Thomas Curwen[547]. Bigod was seized in “a +chapel in Cumberland” with two servants[548], and was taken to Carlisle +Castle to await Norfolk’s orders, as his captors did not dare to bring +him through Westmorland. The circumstances of his pursuit and arrest are +unknown, as they were reported to the King by word of mouth[549]. + +On Monday 12 February nine prisoners were arraigned before Norfolk in +York for treason. There was not yet enough evidence to convict the rest, +who remained in prison. Of the nine who were condemned, one named +Graystoke was “reprieved by desire of all the gentlemen.” Norfolk sent +Cromwell a list of the others, with the places where they were to be +executed. There were three religious, two canons of Warter who were +hanged in chains in York, and the sub-prior of Watton, who suffered at +Watton. Wyvell was hanged at Scarborough, and Fenton and Cante in York. +A yeoman called Otterburn had been the leader of an obscure rising at +Sheriffhutton some days before, and was hanged on Yersley Moor five +miles from Sheriffhutton[550]. Another man, not named on Norfolk’s list, +seems to have been executed at the same time. He was one Stokton who had +brought treasonable bills to Guisborough, “but would not say how he came +by them when he was hanged.”[551] Finally, as Staveley, Middleton and +the other Richmond leaders were not yet caught, Anthony Peacock was +hanged in chains on Richmond Moor as a warning to the district. He had +been stirring the people about Barnard Castle[552]. + +On Thursday 15 February Peacock was in Richmond waiting for his death. +That night half-a-dozen boon companions met at John of Blade’s alehouse +in the little village of Grinton in Swaledale. Among them was Harry +Wycliff, Sir Ralph Bulmer’s servant and brother-in-law. While they were +drinking he turned to the others and exclaimed, “Sirs, what mean ye? Is +your hearts done? Let me have 200 men and I shall give the Duke of +Norfolk an onset, and I shall either save Peacock’s life or have the +Duke’s chain (meaning to have slain him) ... with many other such +seditious words, meaning to make a new commotion.” No one was ready to +aid him in such a desperate attempt, though the men of Swaledale were +Sir Francis Bigod’s tenants and no doubt sympathised with the rebels. +Peacock was hanged next morning and no hand was raised to save him[553]. + +Norfolk intended to turn his attention next to the restored abbeys. He +mentioned, in a letter to the Earl of Sussex, that the gentlemen did not +dare to meddle with them. When Sussex showed the letter to the King, +Henry was especially interested in this point. He said that the +gentlemen had undertaken at Doncaster to restore his farmers to the +abbeys; “he saw not but if the gentlemen had broken promise with him, he +might much better break promise with them.” He left the matter vague, +however, saying that if all went forward satisfactorily he would not +“take any advantage thereof.”[554] + +Cromwell spurred Norfolk on by hinting that he was thought to be too +warm a supporter of the old faith to deal sternly with the abbeys and +“the traitors therein.” Norfolk indignantly repudiated the accusation; +he was no “papist nor favourer of naughty religious persons.” In the +north his feelings were now so well known that he had been warned not to +eat or drink in monasteries[555]. He was going to Leeds on Tuesday 20 +February, thence to Sawley Abbey, and then to Ripon[556]. As he would be +very busy, he suggested that the ordinary justices of assize, whose +arrival was almost due, should be joined in a commission with the Earls +of Cumberland and Westmorland. He thought it very necessary to have +someone to help him with the law work, for his health was bad, and it +would be a pity if the “dreadful execution” begun at York were not +carried out in other places. Norfolk was constantly expecting news of +the arrest of more ringleaders. “As concerning the monks of Sawley and +other abbeys I cannot yet speak of their offences but ere Sunday I doubt +not to do so.” The leaders in Westmorland were Nicholas Musgrave and +Thomas Tibbey, “whom I trust be taken by this time.”[557] + +These two men upset Norfolk’s plans. Ever since Christmas there had been +trouble in Westmorland[558]. On Twelfth Day, 6 January 1536–7, the +deputy captain of Carlisle, Thomas Clifford the bastard, came to Kirkby +Stephen to arrest Nicholas Musgrave. Musgrave was warned and with Thomas +Tibbey he took refuge in the church steeple, so defensible a position +that Clifford was obliged to withdraw without his prisoners, “which +thing stirred the country greatly. And they sent abroad word to keep +watches in every town.” The men of Kirkby Stephen plucked down all the +enclosures in their parish, and sent orders to the surrounding parishes +to follow their example[559]. + +In Cumberland things were no better. The west parts “from Plumland to +Muncaster is all on floughter,” wrote Sir Thomas Curwen[560]. The chief +reason for the agitation was the departure of so many gentlemen to +court. The commons distrusted the King, who might have the gentlemen +beheaded, and they distrusted the gentlemen, who might betray them to +the King. When the gentlemen were away, the bailiffs and other officers +found it impossible to keep order[561]. As soon as he knew the state of +affairs, Norfolk urged Cromwell to send home the Cumberland gentlemen. +Sir Thomas Curwen told a story which showed the feelings of the commons. +On Saturday 13 January a servant of Dr Legh came to Muncaster. The whole +country rose and made him prisoner. He was carried to Egremont and +thence to Cockermouth. A great crowd filled the market-place, crying, +“Strike off his head!” and “Stick him!” He was searched for letters from +the King, but all that were found on him were from his master about +private matters. Nevertheless he would have been put to death; but young +John Swinburn saved him, by advising the people to spare him for a week, +during which inquiries should be made about his conduct. At the end of +the week twenty-four men might try him in open market, and if it could +be proved that he had carried letters from the King to the gentlemen, he +might be put to death. The people agreed and sent through all the +countryside to inquire if he had delivered letters. Whether he was +brought to trial or not he must have escaped death, as nothing more is +heard of him. On 18 January all the tithe barns on the south bank of the +Derwent were plundered. Private feuds were pursued as vigorously as +public grievances. Sir Thomas Curwen fled to Yorkshire because the +commons had determined to take him and force him to take the oath or +die. He went first to Sheriffhutton, then to Richmond and finally to +York, meeting with many seditious bills on the way[562]. + +Norfolk sent orders to Carlisle for the apprehension of Musgrave and +Tibbey[563], and accordingly Thomas Clifford set out again for Kirkby +Stephen in search of them with a troop of horse. His followers were +mosstroopers from the waters of Esk and Line, “strong thieves of the +westlands.” Musgrave and Tibbey fled to their old fastness in the +steeple, and there defied their pursuers. The townsfolk took no part +either for or against the rebels, but while Clifford and some of his men +were debating how to take their quarry, the rest of the riders, +following their inbred vocation, fell to plundering. This was more than +flesh and blood could bear. The burgesses caught up their weapons and +fell upon the spoilers, causing a timely diversion in favour of the men +in the steeple. Scattered about the narrow streets of the town, the +horsemen were at a disadvantage and soon showed that their prowess was +not equal to their thievishness. Two of the townsmen were killed in the +skirmish, but their enraged fellows drove the borderers from the town +and followed up their retreat until they were forced to take refuge in +Brougham Castle[564]. + +The commons saw that they were committed to a new rebellion, although +they had risen in defence of their property; indeed, a panic seems to +have spread through the countryside that they would all be treated like +the people of Kirkby Stephen. The two captains raised all the +surrounding country and sent the following summons to the bailiff of +Kendal, whom they knew to be on their side: + + To the Constable of Mellynge + + Be yt knowen unto you Welbelovyd bretheren in god this same xii day of + februarii at morn was unbelapped on every syde with our enimys the + Captayne of Carlylle and gentylmen of our Cuntrie of Westmerlonde and + haithe destrowed and slayn many our bretheren and neghtbers. Wherfore + we desyre you for ayde and helpe accordyng to your othes and as ye + wyll have helpe of us if your cause requyre, as god forbede. This + tuysday, We comande you every one to be at Kendall afore Eight of the + clok or els we ar lykly to be destrowed. + + Ever more gentyll brether unto your helpyng honds. + + Captayn of Povertie. + + [_Note at the top of the sheet._] the like letter was sent to bethom + by colyns which we sent in our letters to the kinges highnes from + preston xxi march[565]. + +William Collins, the bailiff of Kendal, had just returned from York, +where he and other men from the town had met Norfolk[566]. The whole +country was stirring. Atkinson, Musgrave, Leache and Staveley were +issuing such bills as the one given above, urging the people “that they +should come and take their neighbours of Westmorland’s part.” Collins +forwarded such letters to the surrounding townships. + +Nothing is known of the musters and counsels of the Westmorland rebels. +No gentlemen joined their ranks and very few priests. Their plans were +simple. They had long before decided that the first step in case of a +new rebellion was to seize Carlisle[567]. A new motive for this was +added by the fact that Bigod was a prisoner in the castle[568]. The idea +of a rescue always appeals to the human heart, and though a week before +everyone had been cursing Bigod, now that he was captured and his fate +assured there was a reaction in his favour. After all, everything that +he had prophesied had come to pass. Here was the Duke “busily hanging” +at York; here were loyal subjects robbed and slain in spite of the +pardon. + +The town of Carlisle was little prepared to stand a siege. The walls +were out of repair and the garrison, though loyal, was not strong[569]. +The gentlemen coming in with their own servants, however, soon formed a +force of five hundred or so within the city, and these troops were much +superior in arms and equipment to the six thousand commons who presently +assembled outside the walls. The rebels carried a cross as “their banner +principal.”[570] There was not a single gentleman amongst them, but +though their leaders were poor yeomen, they did not lack determination, +and were for the most part men already outlawed for their share in +earlier risings. They were in hopes of capturing men of position, and it +was said that one of the Percys would join them with a strong company. +The rumours of taxes on christenings and burials were repeated among +them and had perhaps only now reached these shires, the most remote in +the kingdom[571]. + +Norfolk was at Fountains when the news of the outbreak reached him on +Wednesday 14 February. He wrote to the King, and set to work to raise a +sufficient force to march against the rebels[572]. He thought that he +would be ready to set out on Saturday. On Thursday and Friday he was at +Richmond, calling in to him all the nobles and gentlemen, but not daring +to muster the commons. He was determined not to risk defeat, and laid +several plans. He sent Sir Thomas Wharton, Sir Thomas Curwen and other +Westmorland gentlemen back to their own estates to persuade their +tenants, if possible, to take the King’s part. They were to be joined by +two or three hundred light horse when Norfolk could spare the men, and +were to burn and plunder the rebels’ houses, in the hope of making them +abandon Carlisle and return to defend their own goods. Norfolk was not a +little pleased at the prospect of fighting, even under the difficulties +which burdened him. It was true that “this journey will pluck the bottom +out of my purse,” but he trusted to bring the realm to better quiet. +“Now shall appear whether for favour of these countrymen I forbare to +fight with them at Doncaster.”[573] + +The success or failure of the new insurrection depended upon the part +taken by Lord Dacre’s tenants. They had not yet risen for the commons; +the Dacres, if they chose, could raise them for the King. Lord Dacre was +in the south, but his uncle Sir Christopher Dacre was at Gilsland and +wielded authority in his nephew’s absence. During the first insurrection +the Dacres had remained loyal, but had not taken an active part. Their +conduct had been most circumspect, for they lay under suspicion of +treason. Their one offence had been an outbreak of the feud with the +Cliffords and Musgraves. Was Sir Christopher’s loyalty strong enough to +urge him to rescue his blood-foes now pent by the commons within +Carlisle? The Earl of Cumberland had been ordered by the King to +reconcile himself with Dacre, but these official hand-shakings went for +nothing. + +Norfolk showed his fears in a letter to Sir Christopher dated 15 +February. The commons were about to assault Carlisle, and Norfolk +conjured him by their old friendship, by his hopes of the King’s favour, +by his care for his nephew’s safety to come to the relief of the city. +“I will not instruct you what ye shall do, for ye know better than I. +Spare for no reasonable wages, for I will pay all.” Let him but prove +the Duke’s saying that “Sir Christopher Dacre is a true knight to his +sovereign lord, an hardy knight, and a man of war. Pinch now no courtesy +to shed blood of false traitors; and be ye busy on the one side, and ye +may be sure the Duke of Norfolk will come on the other. Finally now, Sir +Christopher, or never.” He signed it “your loving cousin if ye do well +now, or else enemy for ever.”[574] Two copies of this letter were sent +by different hands to insure its safe delivery[575]. + +On the same day, 15 February, the captains of Carlisle were also writing +to Sir Christopher, but their letter was much calmer than Norfolk’s. Men +in a desperate strait do not let their enemy know that he alone can save +them. They commanded Dacre, in the King’s name, to join them at Carlisle +Castle with all the men he could trust “in goodly haste.” If he could +trust “the prickers of Gilsland,” he was to leave “the landserjeant” +with them to attack the rebels, but if the prickers would not fight for +the King, he must bring the landserjeant with him, and in any case he +must come to Carlisle himself. This was signed by Sir John Lowther, +Thomas Clifford, and John Barnfield[576]. + +Unfortunately there is no account of the rising written from the +commons’ point of view, nor, indeed, any full contemporary account at +all. It is extremely difficult to form a coherent idea of the fighting +round Carlisle from the scattered references which remain. The first +move of the commons is clear. On Friday 16 February they mustered on +Broadfield Moor to the number of about 6000 men, more or less +effectively armed and mounted; thence they marched to Carlisle. + +A wanderer came to the Abbey of Holm Cultram, and the Abbot asked him +“What news?” “There was never such a gathering to the Broadfield as +there was that day afore,” said the other. “Almighty God prosper them, +for if they speed not, this abbey is lost,” said the Abbot. He sent his +servants out in haste to summon his tenants to the Abbey church, and +called the sub-prior to him, “and commanded him to cause the brethren to +go daily with procession to speed the commons’ journey.” All the men of +the lordship of Holm assembled in the church. The Abbot came to them and +in the commons’ name bade Cuthbert Musgrave, his deputy officer, ride to +Broadfield at the head of the tenants and join the host there. Musgrave +refused to go, and argued the point with the Abbot. The tenants declared +that they would not go unless the Abbot went with them. “And so they +departed and none went.” The Abbot had enemies among his own brethren; +he had compromised himself past hope before them, and he had not even +helped the cause[577]. + +On Saturday 17 February the commons prepared for the assault on +Carlisle. It does not seem to have been such a vigorous attack as the +word now implies. They approached within bow-shot, and showered arrows +on the defenders who appeared on the city walls. This went on until they +exhausted their supply of arrows, when they retired a little way to +consider what to do next. Perhaps they had actually advanced to the +attack when Sir Christopher Dacre unexpectedly appeared with five +hundred border spearmen. The commons broke and turned to fly; whereupon +Thomas Clifford issued from the castle and fell upon them, pressing on +the pursuit for twelve miles or more. His mosstroopers were in no mood +to spare the countryfolk who had beaten them so ignominiously on +Monday[578]. + +Several heroes on the King’s side distinguished themselves. One Roger +Middlewood, who had been in the Kirkby Stephen skirmish and there was +taken prisoner and stripped, “was the first man out of the town and slew +one with his own hand.”[579] But his honour was challenged by Robin +Grame, a noted spy in Scotland, who, with only two other men, had been +skirmishing with the commons before the assault, and “continued crying +and shouting at them more than one hour before any man came to help +him.” He was one of the last to turn back from the pursuit[580]. Others +of his name won no less praise. The Grahams of Esk, four brothers, +“proper men,” had come in with half their grayne to serve in the castle +without wages. “Whosoever take the thank, these were the first that +break spear on the rebels after the assault.”[581] They were foremost in +the chase, captured seven score rebels and one of the captains, who +seems to have been Thomas Tibbey himself. On the strength of these +services they afterwards petitioned the King that they might hold their +lands on the Esk rent-free, as their father did before them[582]. + +On Saturday 17 February Norfolk was at Barnard Castle, where the +gentlemen of his train had mustered their servants and head +tenants—everyone, in short, whom they could trust. The Duke was +overjoyed with the army which had assembled; there were about 4000 men, +all well tried, harnessed, and mounted on “the best geldings he ever +saw.” Their only anxiety was to atone for their former fault; such a +band would be fearful for the King’s enemies to look upon. Hardly was +this splendid little army in array, when news came from Carlisle which +showed that it would not be needed. Before 9 o’clock in the morning +messengers rode in who had seen the assault upon Carlisle and the rout +of the commons. The chase was not ended when the messengers set out. +Norfolk wrote to Henry: “Your Highness hath as much cause to thank God +as ever had prince. Sir Christopher Dacre has shown himself a noble +knight.” Seven or eight hundred prisoners were taken and the Duke was +about to travel in all haste to Carlisle to see execution done[583]. The +rejoicings in London were great. Sir Christopher Dacre was the hero of +the hour. It was said that he had slain 700 rebels or more and taken the +rest prisoners, hanging them up on every bush. Cromwell declared at +court that “if it lay in him he would make him an earl.”[584] + +This magnificent victory was won over the wretched, desperate commons of +the poorest shire in the realm, fighting in defence of their property +and lives. There is no means of knowing how many were killed, as the +number reported in London, 700, seems to be too large. Wilfred Holme +estimated that 300 prisoners were taken, and this seems a more likely +figure than the 800 reported to Norfolk. The victory was certainly +decisive; in defeat more than at any other time strong captains are +needed; the leaderless commons of Westmorland and Cumberland were +utterly broken. + +Norfolk was in Carlisle on Monday 19 February. There were so many +prisoners in the town that he found great difficulty in providing for +their safe-keeping. He wrote that night to the Council to promise that +if he might go his own way for a month he would order things to the +King’s satisfaction. It would take some time, because he must himself be +present at all the convictions and proceed by martial law, and there +were many places to punish. Not a lord or gentleman in Cumberland and +Westmorland could claim that his servants and tenants had not joined in +the insurrection. “And, good Mr Comptroller[585], provide you of a new +bailiff at Embleton, for John Jackson your bailiff will be hanged +Thursday or Friday at the furthest.”[586] + +Norfolk wrote to Cromwell with assurances that if he did not at once +proceed to “sore justice” it was for no love he bore the traitors, but +for reasons evident to anyone on the spot, but too long to be explained. +Nevertheless more should suffer “than should do if I would believe so +many were compelled to rebellion as is showed me.... I was never so +well-beloved here as I shall be feared if I live another month.” No +doubt Norfolk trusted by the last suggestion to please the King, who was +always jealous of popular noblemen[587]. + +Amidst all his business Norfolk found time to examine Sir Francis Bigod +and “communed with him at great leisure.” Bigod said very little, and +Norfolk sent up his first confession to Cromwell, promising that the +prisoner should be strictly interrogated from time to time[588]. Sir +Francis’ examinations are not now extant, but there is a summary of his +evidence[589]. He said nothing against Darcy, Constable, and Aske, which +must have vexed the authorities. + +Norfolk issued proclamations which commanded all who had been in +rebellion to come to Carlisle and submit themselves humbly to the King’s +mercy. Accordingly on Tuesday 20 February the country-people began to +straggle into the city in scattered, dejected bands. They had lost their +horses, harness, and weapons in the chase; they were in instant fear of +a traitor’s death for themselves, and of fire, plunder, and outrage for +their homes and families. Norfolk imprisoned seventy of the “chief +misdoers,” that is of the braver and more determined of them, and turned +the rest away without even a promise of pardon; but he dared not proceed +to execution until all the country had submitted. He sent orders to the +Earl of Derby and Lord Mounteagle in Lancashire to apprehend all who +might flee in that direction; in Durham the Earl of Westmorland had made +thirteen prisoners, not fugitives, but men who favoured the rebels; thus +there was no encouragement to try to escape eastward[590]. + +Norfolk’s strategy was successful. Every day more and more of the “poor +caitiffs” came in from all districts of Westmorland and Cumberland, even +Cockermouth, the wildest part of all. They were contrite enough to +satisfy any tyrant, “and if sufficient number of ropes might have been +found would have come with the same about their necks.” Seventy-four out +of six thousand who submitted were selected for trial. A Cumberland jury +had not then attained the bad name which it earned long afterwards, and +Norfolk, though a master of the art of choosing juries, dared not trust +one with the work in hand, lest “many a great offender” were acquitted. +He appointed Sir Ralph Ellerker as marshal and Robert Bowes King’s +attorney to prosecute. This must have been a sufficient humiliation for +the Pilgrims’ ambassadors to the King. + +All the prisoners were condemned to die by law martial, the King’s +banner being displayed. Not the fifth part would have been convicted by +a jury. Some protested that they had been dragged into rebellion against +their will. The most part had only one plea, saying, “I came out for +fear of my life, and I came forth for fear of loss of all my goods, and +I came forth for fear of burning of my house and destroying of my wife +and children.”[591] They had not, in fact, turned against the law, they +had risen to defend all that the law should have defended for them from +Clifford’s police, the thieves of the Black Lands[592]. “A small excuse +will be well believed here, where much affection and pity of neighbours +doth reign. And, sir, though the number be nothing so great as their +deserts did require to have suffered, yet I think the like number hath +not been heard of put to execution at one time.” Thus Norfolk wrote to +the King; his chief anxiety was lest it should be thought that he had +not put a sufficient number to death. He assured his master that every +man who had taken a forward part in the rising was to suffer. He had +done his best, helped by Sir Christopher Dacre, Sir Thomas Wharton, Sir +Thomas Curwen, Sir John Lamplough and the other gentlemen, to try out +sufficient matter against more of the prisoners; little as was needed, +he had failed, though he still hoped to swell his numbers with some who +had fled or were in hiding[593]. + +No time was lost over the executions, as Norfolk was in haste to be in +Northumberland, where Tynedale and Reedsdale were giving trouble. The +rebels were hanged in their own villages, “in trees in their gardens +to record for memorial” the end of the rebellion[594]. Twelve were +hanged in chains in Carlisle for the assault on the city, eleven at +Appleby, eight at Penrith, five at Cockermouth and Kirkby Stephen, and +so on; scarcely a moorland parish but could show one or two such +memorials. Some were hanged in ropes, for iron was “marvellous +scarce,” and the chain-makers of Carlisle were unable to meet the +demand. The victims were all poor men, farm hands from the fields and +artisans of the little towns; probably the bailiff of Embleton was the +highest man among them. Only one priest suffered with them, a chaplain +of Penrith. The government’s conviction that the clergy were at the +bottom of the new rising was mistaken; Norfolk, with the best will in +the world, could only implicate one priest, but he made the vicar of +Brough-under-Stainmore prisoner, although he had done nothing unlawful +since the pardon, except that he had prayed for the Pope. Norfolk +wished to know the King’s pleasure as to whether he must suffer or +not[595]. + +Later times have seen assizes more bloody than Norfolk’s in +Carlisle—Sussex’ in York after the Rising of the North—Jeffreys’ in the +west country after Monmouth’s rebellion. The horror of the Carlisle +assizes lies less in their cruelty than in their injustice. Those who +take up arms for a political cause must look to be punished for +political reasons, but what principle can condemn men miserably poor for +defending the little they have? The judges knew well that they were +doing an indefensible act, and they spared the people as far as they +dared. This is the final indictment of Henry’s government, that his +greatest nobleman hanged men whom he knew to be guilty only of having +turned against intolerable oppression. Norfolk wrote to Cromwell: “What +with the spoiling of them now and the gressing of them so marvellously +sore in time past and with increasing of lords’ rents by enclosing, and +for lack of the persons of such as shall suffer, this border is sore +weaked and especially Westmorland; the more pity they should so deserve, +and also that they have been so sore handled in times past, which, as I +and all other here think, was the only cause of the rebellion.”[596] +Perhaps Norfolk told his conscience (if it ever troubled him) that +another man would have made more sure of the King’s favour by greater +severity. + +When the news of the rebels’ defeat reached the King, he sent orders for +the harshest measures to be enforced. His instructions have been quoted +so often that a summary of them is sufficient here. First the King +thanked all who had served him, especially Norfolk and Sir Christopher +Dacre; “you shall have good cause to rejoice of your doing in that +behalf.” He heartily approved of Norfolk’s declaration of martial law, +and his banner was not to be closed until the country was in such fear +as would insure better behaviour. + +Bigod, the Friar of Knaresborough, Leache, “the vicar of Penrith,” +Chancellor Towneley and Pickering of Bridlington or as many of them as +were in Norfolk’s hands, were to be sent to the King. The lands and +goods of these and any other traitors who owned such were to be seized, +and the King would consider the question of rewarding faithful subjects +with them. + +Finally Norfolk was to proceed to Sawley, Hexham, Newminster, Lanercost, +St Agatha’s at Richmond, and such other monasteries as had “made any +manner of resistance,” and to cause the monks or canons found faulty “to +be tied up, without further delay or ceremony, to the terrible example +of others; wherein we think you shall do us high service.”[597] This is +one of the most famous commands King Henry ever gave, and nobody knows +whether it was obeyed. This ignorance is due to the fact that from 24 +February to 5 March there is a blank in Norfolk’s correspondence with +the King. The Duke intended to ride from Carlisle to Hexham, there to +suppress the Abbey, take order for Tynedale and Reedsdale, hear any +cases of sedition in Northumberland, and take the oaths of the +gentlemen. From Hexham he meant to go to Durham and thence to York, +“sitting in execution” at both cities[598]. + +His own account of this expedition is lost. He did not go to Newminster +in Northumberland, for it was not suppressed until August 1537, when all +the monks received pensions[599]. It is not known why the King named it +as a centre of sedition. Nothing is known about the fate of Lanercost +Priory and its inmates, nor about that of St Agatha’s at Richmond. +Sawley was suppressed by Norfolk’s orders, though not by the Duke in +person, and the Abbot and some of the monks were executed[600]. Norfolk +went to Hexham, but in his next letters, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, there +is no account of what he did there. A letter to Cromwell about the +suppression of Hexham Priory exists, however, and as there is no mention +in it of the “tying up” of any monks, it is probable that Henry’s orders +arrived too late, that Norfolk had already closed the King’s banner in +token that martial law was ended, and that he therefore had a sufficient +excuse for sparing the canons. + +A fragment of Norfolk’s reply to the King’s famous letter has been +preserved by a Cumberland historian, although the original is lost. No +doubt if it still existed the problem of the monks’ fate would be +solved, for if martial law was no longer in force Norfolk would have no +power of summary execution. The remains of the letter are as follows: + + “Aglionby, I doubt not, or now hath shewed you highness what was done + at Carlisle. And though none were quartered because I knew not your + pleasure therein before: yet all the threescore and fourteen be hanged + in chains or ropes upon gallows or trees, in all such towns as they + did dwell in. And whereas your Majesty would have sent the vicar of + Penrith to you; it is not of Penrith, but of Brough that your grace + doth mean, for there is none such; for whom I have sent to my lord of + Cumberland, for I left him in his keeping. And also I have for Doctor + Towneley, and doubt not within three days to have them both with me, + and so shall send them up.”[601] + +In order to conclude the matter of the rebellion in Cumberland, it is +necessary to look forward for some weeks. Sir Thomas Curwen, the sheriff +of Cumberland, received anonymous letters accusing the Abbot of Holm +Cultram of treason. With Sir Thomas Wharton and others he paid a secret +visit to the Abbey on 22 May 1537, collected enough evidence to hang the +Abbot, and forwarded it to Norfolk. As usual the Abbot’s fate is +uncertain[602]. + +The Cumberland magistrates were no doubt trying to regain Norfolk’s +favour by their zeal in the case of the Abbot, because they had incurred +his displeasure in another matter. Two months after the Duke’s session +in Carlisle, he heard that the bodies of all the rebels who were +executed had been cut down and buried. He rebuked the magistrates with +“quick messages,” and ordered them to search out the ill-doers. They +sent him nine or ten confessions in reply, but he did not consider these +nearly enough. “It is a small number concerning seventy-four that hath +been taken down, wherein I think your Majesty hath not been well +served.” Norfolk asked the King on 8 May how these offenders were to be +punished; they were all women—the widows, mothers and daughters of the +dead men. Of all the records these brief confessions are the most +heart-breaking and can least bear description. The widows and their +neighbours helped each other. Seven or eight women together would wind +the corpse and bury it in the nearest churchyard, secretly, at nightfall +or daybreak. Sometimes they were turned from their purpose by the +frightened priest, and then the husband’s body must be buried by a +dyke-side out of sanctified ground, or else brought again more secretly +than ever and laid in the churchyard under cover of night. All was done +by women, save in two cases when the brother and cousin of two of the +dead men were said to have died from the “corruption” of the bodies they +had cut down[603]. The Earl of Cumberland was blamed by Norfolk for the +loss of the bodies, and it must be counted to the Earl’s credit that he +was ashamed to look too closely into so pitiful a story. Norfolk wrote +to Cromwell: + + “I do perceive by your letter that ye would know whether such persons + as were put to execution in Westmorland and Cumberland were taken down + and buried by my commandment or not: undoubtedly, my good lord, if I + had consented thereunto, I would I had hanged by them; but on my + troth, it is 8 or 9 days past sith I heard first thereof, and then was + here with me a servant of my lord of Cumberland’s called Swalowfield + dwelling about Penrith, by whom I sent such a quick message to my said + lord, because he hath the rule in Cumberland as warden, and is sheriff + of Westmorland and hath neither advertised me thereof, nor hath not + made search who hath so highly offended his Majesty, and also + commanding him to search for the same with all diligence, that I doubt + not it shall evidently appear it was done against my will.”[604] + +The Duke was anxious to shift the blame on to someone else’s shoulders, +as the King was very angry at this defiance of his authority. He +remarked characteristically that he did not believe it “had come of +women’s heads only,” although the depositions do not mention the names +of any living men concerned in it. On 22 May Cromwell insinuated that +Norfolk must have countenanced the offenders, and sent most positive +orders that somebody must be punished, but the fate of the women is +unknown[605]. + +To return to the main course of our narrative, Norfolk was at Hexham on +Monday 26 February. There he met Sir Reynold Carnaby, the farmer of the +Priory, and put him in possession. The canons were turned out “with very +good exhortation to the inhabitants” of Hexham uttered by Norfolk. With +the Duke and his train in their midst they were “very tractable and +sorry for what they had done amiss.” They professed themselves ready to +obey Carnaby “as their officer,” when they saw Cromwell’s orders to that +effect, though without these he was likely to have been “discouraged.” +Norfolk asked him if the canons had done anything contrary to their +allegiance since the pardon. Carnaby answered, “No, otherwise I would +have been an untrue man to conceal it.”[606] Sir Reynold was already +held in evil report among his neighbours, and if he had informed against +the canons his life would not have been safe. The people of the +neighbourhood loved their Priory, and to this day Carnaby is spoken of +with hatred in the countryside. + +From Hexham Norfolk went to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where he stayed for +some time, chiefly engaged in his second task of bringing the Borders +into comparative peace[607]. He visited Prudhoe Castle, Sir Thomas +Percy’s home, and gave it into the keeping of the Percys’ deadly foe Sir +Reynold Carnaby; but he first had an inventory made of the goods in the +castle, and redelivered them to Lady Percy by bill indented. He seems to +have been touched by the desolation of Lady Percy, “a good woman” who +obeyed him in all things. She gave him the Abbot of Sawley’s +supplication, which seemed to the casual reader so innocent but proved +in the end evidence sufficient to take five men’s lives. Lady Percy sent +it to Norfolk, no doubt in obedience to a demand for papers; if she had +read it she could scarcely have guessed that it was worth her husband’s +head. Norfolk thought it would “touch the Abbot very sore” but does not +seem to have considered it compromising to Percy. Lady Percy was setting +out for London, to be near Sir Thomas, who was in the Tower. She herself +carried Norfolk’s letters[608]. + +The Earl of Northumberland was preparing to surrender his estates into +the King’s hands. He was stricken by his last illness. To Norfolk’s +great indignation he had sent down servants to sell the woods on his +lands in Yorkshire, probably in a last attempt to raise money to satisfy +some of his creditors. “As good to pull down the houses as destroy the +woods,”[609] wrote the Duke, and sent peremptory orders to Topcliff that +nothing of the sort was to be attempted[610]. + +On 3 March the Privy Council sent Norfolk special orders concerning Sir +Robert Constable. The King had despatched letters which bade him repair +to court; the messenger found him at Flamborough and “he made no +satisfactory answer to the letters.” Norfolk was ordered to send word to +Sir Ralph Ellerker at Hull and Sir Ralph Evers at Scarborough to watch +the ports so that Sir Robert might not escape by sea; at the same time +the Duke was to advise him to obey the King, and if he did not at once +address himself to the journey, he must be sent up by a +serjeant-at-arms[611]. Norfolk did not think that Sir Robert was likely +to fly, though if he intended to do so, he could take ship from +Flamborough, which was his own town, without anyone being the wiser. +Constable seems to have gone up on receiving Norfolk’s letters, as +nothing is ever said about his arrest, and it was not likely to pass off +quietly in the midst of his own country. The King also desired that Dr +Pickering should be sent up, and Norfolk promised to arrest him at +once[612]. + +After suppressing the lesser monasteries within his commission Norfolk +had about three hundred religious persons on his hands wanting +capacities, which he had no power to give; neither had he a commission +for levying the subsidy. These were mere hitches, however, and he was +soon to find himself face to face with a serious difficulty[613]. On +Thursday 8 March he rode to the city of Durham, and next day sat on the +indictments of about twenty offenders; but before the beginning of the +session he discovered that the Bishopric of Durham was not included in +his commission. All the country had come in, everything was ready for +the trial, and Norfolk had no legal power to proceed with it. He +decided, with the advice of his council, to keep secret his lack of +authority, and accordingly the jury was charged and the indictments were +found[614]. Thirteen offenders, including the Priory porter and two of +the Priory cooks[615], would have been condemned next day in the +ordinary course of justice, but Norfolk graciously respited them until +after Low Sunday [7 April 1537], as he was too busy to wait in Durham +for an answer to the letters which he despatched to the King and +Cromwell. + +In these letters Norfolk humbly asked pardon for not having perused his +commission more carefully; in future he would have such documents read +by counsel. He was about to return to Newcastle-upon-Tyne for a brief +visit devoted to Border affairs, and after that he proposed to ride to +York by way of Beverley and Hull, taking with him from those towns the +offenders whom Ellerker had admitted to bail after Bigod’s rising[616]. +Norfolk was very anxious to know how many the King wished him to +arraign; his own inclination was to be sparing of executions. “Folks +think the last justice at Carlisle great, and if more than twenty suffer +at Durham and York it will be talked about.”[617] + +The King received these letters on 17 March; in his reply he thanked +Norfolk for his proceedings, sent him a complete commission, and assured +him that he did not consider him to blame for the omission in the last +one. The King particularly desired the conviction of Hutton of Snaith, +against whom, as he understood, new matter had been found; “we and our +Council thought his assembly on pretence of making a supplication no +less than high treason, even if this matter had not turned up.” Nothing +is known of Hutton’s “assembly.” The man is something of a mystery, as +no account remains of the rising round Snaith, which was part of Darcy’s +country. Hutton, along with Aske and Constable, was excepted by name out +of the intended Yorkshire pardons in November[618]. A theory that seems +to meet the circumstances is that Snaith rose at the beginning of the +rebellion, perhaps earlier than the East Riding, and sent a private +supplication to the King, as the people of Louth did. This petition, the +first to come from Yorkshire, might have especially angered Henry. If +this were the case, Hutton’s assembly must have occurred during the +period covered by the pardon, yet the King thought it enough to hang him +without further evidence, a clear sign of the way things were going. It +is of course possible that his offence was committed after the pardon, +but in that case Norfolk need not have waited for fresh evidence before +acting against him. + +The King’s further orders were that Norfolk must bring to trial the +Abbot of Jervaux[619] and the quondam Abbot of Fountains, for whose +apprehension he was heartily thanked. If enough matter could be found +against the Abbot of Sawley, as the King did not doubt, remembering his +supplication to Sir Thomas Percy, he was to be disposed of with the +others. The men let out on bail by Sir Ralph Ellerker were left to +Norfolk’s discretion. The King perceived from the evidence before him +that the Friars Observant were “disciples of the Bishop of Rome and +sowers of sedition”; therefore the Duke must arrest the friars of that +order and imprison them in the houses of other friars, strictly +forbidding any man to converse with them until the King’s pleasure +towards them was known. Finally the King was about to send for Lord +Darcy, as Norfolk himself had advised in a lost letter[620]. + +Lord Darcy lay quietly at Pontefract Castle, victualling and garrisoning +it at his own cost. He sent Sir Arthur Darcy to Norfolk with +instructions to show him that all was quiet round Pontefract, the castle +prepared, and Darcy ready at his command. Sir Arthur was to ask for a +copy of the King’s oath, which Darcy and his friends and retainers had +taken in Pontefract Priory, and he must consult the Duke about Thomas +Strangways, Darcy’s steward[621], who had carried to Aske in York +Darcy’s messages—and some of his own, too[622]. Strangways’ cousin, Sir +Oswald Wolsthrope, had warned him that Cromwell bore him no goodwill, +and he had gone to Whitby Abbey and the parts about Guisborough in order +that Darcy and his friends might not be troubled on his account, +although he still trusted to the King’s pardon. He had offered to leave +Darcy’s service, but his master was loth to part with him unless Norfolk +advised him to do so. + +Sir Arthur Darcy was with the Duke in York on 9 February. Norfolk +intended to go to Sawley in person to expel the monks, and as Sir Arthur +was the farmer, he was expected to attend the Duke with a company of +friends and kinsmen suitable to the occasion. He wrote to his father, +requesting him to send such a company to join him on Wednesday at +Leeds[623]. Darcy asked for further particulars. Were the men to be +harnessed, and were they to be paid, and how many must there be[624]? On +10 February, the day after he received Sir Arthur’s letter, Lord Darcy +wrote to Robert Aske, desiring him to deliver secretly to the bearer, +Darcy’s constable, all the arrows, bows and spears which had been taken +from the castle during the insurrection[625]. It must have occurred to +Darcy that this action might be misinterpreted, when he asked for +secrecy; or perhaps he was afraid of provoking the commons, who were +still on the alert when they saw a royal castle being put into a state +of defence; for this took place while Richmond was still in a state of +turmoil and before the rising in Cumberland. These considerations might +make secrecy desirable, although otherwise it was unnecessary. It was +perfectly natural that Aske should take arms from a captured fortress, +and equally natural that Darcy should want them back again after the +insurrection when he was suddenly called upon to equip an armed force. +The King had laid great stress on the refortification of Pontefract, and +Darcy was carrying out these orders as well as he could, knowing that +any delay or inefficiency would be turned against him and reported as +proof of a traitorous disposition. + +Sir Arthur Darcy answered his father’s questions on 12 February. He +wanted thirty or forty “clean fellows” besides his own servants; the +well-horsed men must be provided with spears and the worse with bows, +and he was willing to pay their costs. Norfolk sent Darcy thanks for his +good offers; he advised him to put away Strangways, but if the man had +not offended since the pardon he might live where he chose without +fear[626]. + +Darcy sent the men, but the Duke’s plans were altered by the rising in +Cumberland, and Sir Arthur rode with him to the musters at Barnard +Castle. “I beg you to be no less nigh to his person than ye would be to +me,” wrote his father to him[627]. When news was received at Barnard +Castle of the rebels’ defeat, Norfolk gave Sir Arthur his choice of +riding with him to Cumberland or departing with his own men to Sawley. +Sir Richard Tempest had been sent to Sawley, where he turned out the +monks and put three of his servants into possession. Sir Arthur +prudently decided to look after his goods. He came to Sawley none too +soon, for he found Tempest’s servants wasting the Abbey stuff and +collecting his rents. The abbot had been allowed to depart, and at first +Sir Arthur could not learn where he was. Before he left, however, secret +information was brought and twelve of his servants hunted down the abbot +and made him prisoner; the poor man protested that he was fit neither to +ride nor walk, and had done no wrong, for the commons had forced him to +re-enter the Abbey against his will. Sir Arthur took depositions from +some of the abbot’s tenants which, he said, showed that the religious +were the stirrers of all this pestilent sedition “and not only that but +would have eftsoons quickened and revived the same.” When Sir Arthur was +leaving the Abbey, he heard that Leache of Lincolnshire “and others of +his like” were hiding in Lonsdale. He sent out his men in search of +them, and rode himself to Kettlewell, where they were said to be hidden, +but did not find them. + +On 25 February he returned to Pontefract and sent a report to Cromwell. +The country was quiet, thanks to Norfolk’s severities. His father was in +the castle, ready at the King’s command, “but his disease grows upon him +and he desires licence to withdraw and live with a small company till he +be out of debt.” He had dismissed Strangways[628]. On 22 March Darcy +wrote to the King, suggesting that as the country was in such quiet it +was no longer necessary to keep a full garrison at Pontefract. He wished +to come up to the King at Easter, even though he were able to travel +“but six miles a day.”[629] Shortly afterwards he was commanded to +repair to the King’s presence. It may have been on this occasion, or +perhaps earlier, that Darcy wrote down a number of memoranda, in which +mention is made of his journey up to court. The notes are disjointed, +not always intelligible, and chiefly connected with his public life. +Among them this passage occurs: + + “Item, to counsel with Sir Arthur for bestowing of my servants or + helping [them] with fees, annuities or [other] ways: and himself. For + I peremptor feel my broken heart, and great diseases, without remedy, + to the death of [my] body, which God not offended I most desire, after + His high pleasure and my soul’s health: and He be my judge never lost + King a truer servant and subject without any cause but lack of + furniture and by false reports and pick-thanks. God save the King: + though I be without recovery.”[630] + +Towards the end of March 1537, Lord Darcy set out for London. + +On the 22nd Norfolk was in York, resting a little after all his riding, +but otherwise as busy as ever. As he was staying for two or three days +in the same place “about execution,” he thought it a good opportunity to +hunt out the devisers of the articles of the spirituality, which the +divines at Pontefract had drawn up and submitted to him at Doncaster. +About this matter he thought that Dr Dakyn, William Bowyer the alderman +of York, and Friar Pickering could disclose most, and he sent them up to +London. Dakyn had written out the articles for the council of divines, +and he could tell “what sort the Archbishop was of,” but Robert Bowes +and other gentlemen bore witness that Dakyn had stood firmly to the +King’s part in the first insurrection, and had endangered his life in +consequence of his loyalty. Bowyer could tell much if he chose, for he +had been in Lord Darcy’s favour and was “as naughty a knave as any.” +Norfolk advised Cromwell that Pickering should be gently handled and +given fair words. He would be able to give information about the prior +of Bridlington and Sir Robert Constable, who was a close friend of the +prior. By this means Cromwell ought to be able to discover any offences +of Darcy or Constable since the pardon[631]. + +Norfolk had taken Aske with him when he rode north, though he regarded +him with less suspicion than scorn. It must have been a terrible journey +for Aske. Did he at last abandon all belief in Henry’s faith? Or did he +still hope that a northern parliament would be called and that it might +carry the King and the nobles along with it in a violent reaction? +Whatever the thoughts of his heart, with Norfolk he assumed confidence. +“The man is marvellous glorious, often time boasting to me that he hath +such sure espial that nothing can be done nor imagined against the +King’s Highness, but he will shortly give me warning thereof,” wrote the +Duke scoffingly. He did not believe a word of this; fear in his mind was +the instrument of power, never love. Aske might boast of his influence +over the commons, but the gentlemen were never tired of telling Norfolk +how much they hated him and that he was the only cause and head of the +insurrection, the most guilty of all:— + + “I have by policy brought him to desire me to give him licence to ride + to London, and have promised to write a letter to your Lordship for + him; which letter I pray you take of like sort as ye did the other I + wrote for Sir Thomas Percy. If neither of them both come never in this + country again I think neither true nor honest men would be sorry + thereof, nor in likewise for my lord Darcy nor Sir Robert Constable. + Hemlock is no worse in a good salad than I think the remaining of any + of them in these parts should be ill to the common wealth.” + +Norfolk believed that the articles were Aske’s work and that Sir Robert +Constable and Lord Darcy were the most earnest maintainers of them. For +both these men Aske had a great love, and the King would do well to give +him secret interviews, “and wade with him with fair words, as though he +had great trust in him. This would make him cough out as much as he +knows concerning” them. Nevertheless the Duke could not find the +slightest sign that they had stirred sedition since the pardon; on the +contrary they did their best to prevent and put down Bigod’s +rising[632]. Norfolk caused Aske to draw up several written statements +concerning the rising. One was a list of the spoils in which he had +shared, though he had never plundered anyone himself[633]. Another +concerned his correspondence with his brother Christopher, the articles +of the clergy, his intercourse with the Earl of Northumberland, and his +promise to Levening[634]. The third was about the taking of +Pontefract[635]. On 24 March Aske left York for London, with Norfolk’s +letter of recommendation to Cromwell and another to the King, which +Cromwell was to see “weighed accordingly.”[636] + +On the same day the Duke was at York sitting in justice on those who had +been concerned in Bigod’s rising. It may be presumed that some were +condemned, but this is not certain, and two at least were acquitted on +the ground that they had been dragged into the business against their +wills. One of these was called Lutton; the other was William Levening of +Acklam, the gentleman who had appealed to Aske, Darcy and Constable to +help him[637]. Norfolk saw at once that there would be trouble about +this acquittal. It was difficult to find anything incriminating against +the leaders of the Pilgrimage since the pardon; it could be proved, not +only by Levening’s confession but by Aske’s own statement that they had +promised to help Levening. If he was a traitor, the three leaders were +guilty of misprision of treason and there was a sufficient case for the +crown. It is true that they had not in fact concealed the matter, for +Aske had reported it to the Duke, but such a fine point could easily be +overlooked in the sweeping measures of Tudor justice[638]. Levening’s +acquittal was therefore very inconvenient, and the King demanded the +names of the offending jurors. Norfolk replied that he would find them +out; he advised the King not to summon them to London or it would be +said “that men should be compelled to pass otherwise than their +conscience should lead them.”[639] No doubt he was thinking of the +scandal and indignation which Wycliff’s case had caused[640]. If the +King would let Norfolk come himself, he would bring with him “the +greatest stickers in the King’s part to have the indictments pass,” who +would explain the matter. “Some that were acquit was not without good +grounds,” and if Lutton had been condemned the Duke would have reprieved +him. Sir Ralph Ellerker, who was the only witness against him, said that +if he had been on the jury “he would not for all his lands have cast +him.”[641] + +The Council sent in reply strict orders that the Levening affair should +be “boulted out.” The King thought Levening’s treason manifest; +therefore the jurors must be examined[642]. As to this intimidating +others, as long as the King gained by that, he seems to have cared +little what justice lost. Norfolk, who was very busy, delayed to send +the names[643], and probably contrived never to show a full list, for he +saw clearly that the north was not yet ready for a full revelation of +the King’s methods; but Thomas Delariver, one of the gentlemen on the +jury, went up to the King. He had not been named by the sheriff, but +Norfolk trusted him and Sir Henry Gascoigne so much that he put them on +the jury in spite of this, and they were the principal “stickers” on the +King’s behalf[644]. In a deposition which he made concerning Levening’s +trial he displayed the secret deliberations of the jurors and the inside +of the case. Sir Ralph Ellerker was the chief witness against Levening; +Delariver, Sir Henry Gascoigne, Thwaites of Maston and two other jurors +thought that his evidence was enough, and were ready to find the +prisoner guilty of death. John Donnyngton, Henry Rasshall, Wentworth and +four more held the contrary. Some of them were Levening’s neighbours, +and they believed that the evidence was given maliciously, because the +King had granted Ellerker some of Levening’s lands. Delariver urged that +it was impossible the King should have disposed of a man’s lands before +he was attainted, and pressed them to give a verdict of guilty. They +debated the point from 9 o’clock on Friday morning until Saturday night. +The majority said that if Levening was guilty, so were all Bigod’s +company, and yet Lutton had been acquitted. The others replied that +Lutton was less guilty than Levening, for he had gone with Bigod against +his will, and had substantiated his plea by flying to the Ellerkers. +Finally Delariver declared that an acquittal would be “the destruction +of us all.” Between 12 and 1 o’clock on Saturday an usher came from the +Duke to ask if they had yet agreed on their verdict. The majority +answered that they had, and the rest, for very weariness, let silence +assent. The Duke of Norfolk came to the Castle, and just as they were +going before him Delariver heard Rasshall say to Thwaites that old Sir +Marmaduke Constable would rather lose a hundred pounds than that +Levening should be condemned. On hearing this Delariver exclaimed that +he would die rather than find Levening not guilty:— + + “The Duke then rose up and went to his lodging, appointing his men + Scarlit and Brigham to keep the jury more straitly; who took away from + them all that might keep them warm. At night the Duke sent Leonard + Beckwith and Mansfield to them and they fell all to prayer and rose up + and agreed to acquit Levening; for some of them would not have agreed + to the contrary to have died in the cause.”[645] + +The jury may have escaped the King’s anger; at least no record of their +punishment remains. + +Norfolk had further trouble in the matter of sending prisoners up to +London. Cromwell had sent for sixteen, and later the King added five +more. The Duke explained that he would have to send a guard of at least +thirty horsemen with them, and he could not spare so many before his +second visit to Durham and Newcastle[646]. By way of economising +escorts, he suggested that letters under the privy seal might be sent to +summon some of the intended prisoners to court; this would be quite safe +in the cases of Sir Stephen Hamerton, Nicholas Tempest and the Prior of +Bridlington, who were in no fear of arrest[647]. Norfolk was surprised +that Gregory Conyers was named among the proposed arrests; no man had +done better service than he at the taking of Bigod, and it would be a +mistake to send him up in custody “unless there be pregnant matter +against him.”[648] Conyers was probably sent for on the accusation of +Sir Francis Bigod. The King was quite willing that as many as could be +trusted should come up to London as free men[649]. Sir Thomas Tempest +was to have charge of the prisoners, among whom was Sir John +Bulmer[650]. + +Norfolk was at Newborough during the first days of April[651]. He rode +thence to Newcastle-upon-Tyne about Border affairs, and was at Durham on +the 11th[652]. There he received letters from the King, dated the 8th, +which contained the news that Lord Darcy, Sir Robert Constable and +Robert Aske had been arrested, and ordered Norfolk to take inventories +of their goods, and seize all their rents and evidences, “so that they +may be forthcoming to our use if” the prisoners “shall not be purged of +the treasons whereof they be now accused.” In a postscript the King +added that this was an additional reason for prolonging Norfolk’s stay +in the north, as, in his own elliptical phrase, “Lord Darcy, Sir Robert +Constable and Robert Aske ... we doubt not will by their confessions +detect such matter touching those parts as we would trust no man there +so well with the execution of as yourself.”[653] + +On 12 April Norfolk was busy with the trials of the prisoners whom he +had been obliged to leave alive at Durham on his first visit. The Earl +of Westmorland had arrested thirteen men for some unidentified +disturbance, perhaps for “ungoodly handling” Lancaster Herald, or for +threatening to hang Westmorland’s bailiff. One of these prisoners had +escaped or had been acquitted. Norfolk had picked up two prisoners in +Cumberland, John Follansby, gentleman, and Henry Brasse; their offences +are never mentioned. Another prisoner, Michael Swayne, appeared in the +interval between the first and the second assize[654]. The Sheriff of +Yorkshire sent Hutton of Snaith to Durham by Norfolk’s command, as no +sufficient matter could be found against him in his own county; “nor +would have been here,” wrote Norfolk, “unless great diligence and +circumspection had been used.” Of these sixteen prisoners there was “not +one acquit,” as the Duke triumphantly noted, and they were hanged in +chains near their homes. Norfolk boasted to the King that people were in +such fear that no one now alive was likely to see another insurrection. +The King’s visit to the north would establish its loyalty for ever. He +need not stay for more than six or eight days, and there would be no +lack of food “after the fashion of the country” nor of forage, if he did +not come until late in July. Many full-grown people had never seen the +King, and the King of Scots, “your scant kind nephew,” was shortly to +return “into his proud populous realm.” Those who thought that the King +could not come in safety without a very large company had only to see +the state of the country to be undeceived[655]. After finishing the +assizes at Durham by attending to the restitution of spoils, Norfolk +went to Sheriffhutton and took up his abode in the King’s castle +there[656]. He was very much occupied with Border affairs, which will be +dealt with later, but he did not forget the King’s order to seize the +goods of the Pilgrimage leaders[657]. + +On 24 April William Blytheman wrote to Dr Legh from York. He confirmed +Norfolk’s account of the peaceful state of the country. Every malefactor +was afraid; the spirit of the people had changed much since the +insurrection. Complaints were no longer heard against the visitation of +the monasteries: “I dare well say there is no religious man that will +avouch any grief for that matter.” By midsummer another visitation might +be instituted without any danger of opposition. The gentlemen whom +Norfolk was sending as prisoners to London in the charge of Sir Thomas +Tempest and Robert Bowes had just passed through York[658]. + +On Monday 7 May Norfolk received letters from the King and Cromwell[659] +accompanied by the indictments charging Lord Darcy, Robert Aske, Sir +Robert Constable, Sir Thomas Percy, Sir Francis Bigod, Sir John Bulmer +and Margaret his wife, Sir Stephen Hamerton, George Lumley, Ralph +Bulmer, Nicholas Tempest, James Cockerell, quondam prior of Guisborough, +William Wood, Prior of Bridlington, Adam Sedbar, Abbot of Jervaux, and +William Thirsk, quondam abbot of Fountains, with treason and conspiracy +against the King[660]. According to the usual procedure, these +indictments must be found a true bill by a Yorkshire jury before the +offenders could be tried in London. At first Norfolk was puzzled by the +fact that there were two indictments exactly the same, but after +consulting his council, he concluded that he was intended “to have two +divers inquests; which, if ye do so I think ye do well, for they being +so kept that one of them shall not know what an other doth, shall make +them the more quick to find the matter.” This was a method of guiding +the hands of justice which entirely recommended itself to the Duke’s +ingenious mind. So many gentlemen from all parts of the shire were with +him on their own business that he was able to hold the assize at once, +and he expected “to have the greatest appearance that was seen at York +of many years, on Tuesday at night and Wednesday in the morning.” He was +careful to provide for as many juries as might be needed—“we shall lack +no number, if I should have four inquests.... My good lord, I will not +spare to put the best friends these men have upon one of the inquests, +to prove their affections whether they will rather serve his majesty +truly and frankly in this matter, or else to favour their friends. And +if they will not find then they may have thanks according to their +cankered hearts. And, as for the other inquest, I will appoint such that +I shall no more doubt than of myself.” Everything was being done in the +greatest haste; Cromwell need not doubt that the matter would be found +“according to the King’s pleasure,” and the result would be in his hands +by Friday night[661]. + +Accordingly on Wednesday 9 May the Duke was at York amidst the fullest +assembly of gentlemen that had been seen there for forty years; no one +who was still able to sit his horse was missing. Norfolk selected his +two juries, one of twenty-one and the other of twenty men. The first was +composed chiefly of kinsmen of the Pilgrimage leaders. Sir Christopher +Danby, “cousin german removed to the lord Darcy” was the foreman; Sir +Edward Gower and Sir Roger Chambley, Constable’s sons-in-law, five more +gentlemen related or allied to Darcy, and John Aske, Robert’s brother, +were all on the “quest,” and their kinship to the accused was carefully +noted by Norfolk himself. + +As to the other jury, the foreman was Sir James Strangways, and it +included Darcy’s enemy Sir Henry Saville, Thomas Delariver who +distinguished himself at Levening’s trial, Nicholas Rudston who had been +as deep as any man in the first rising and later turned King’s evidence, +and Gregory Conyers, who ran Bigod down. It will be observed that +Rudston was one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution in +Constable’s case, yet he sat on the grand jury. All the others were men +whom Norfolk could trust, though two or three were related to Bigod or +the Bulmers[662]. + +The position must have been clear to everyone present. If the first jury +dared to differ from the second, who were certain to find the prisoners +guilty, their decision would be declared a traitorous favouring of their +kinsmen and another jury would be called from among the gentlemen whom +Norfolk had in readiness. The jurors might compromise themselves, while +they could not save their friends. It seems almost incredible that such +a thing should have been done in England. It is true that juries were +easily bribed or intimidated, and Levening’s case shows how much family +politics had to do with a gentleman’s sense of justice, but Wycliff’s +case and Sir Thomas More’s charming story of the juror who would not +agree with the rest for the sake of good company indicate that men were +not devoid of conscience then any more than they are now, and that there +was a standard of true justice, however much below it the actual +practice might fall. It must have attracted notice that so many kinsmen +of the accused were on one jury; but Darcy and Constable between them +were related to most of the gentry of the north, and the selection might +almost have happened by chance, if Norfolk’s letter did not prove that +it was purposely done. John Aske’s appointment was a different matter. +In the days when even distant relationship was a binding tie, it must +have appeared still more monstrous than it does now that one brother +should be forced to pass sentence on another. John was probably too weak +and too much frightened to protest, but why did Norfolk venture upon +such an outrage? He had warned the King against the scandal that would +follow any public punishment of the jury which had acquitted Levening. +Yet little more than a month later he did not hesitate to commit this +far greater abuse of power. It is hard for us to-day to imagine an +adequate motive for such an action. No doubt Norfolk wished to be able +to say “The prisoners must have been guilty: their own friends convicted +them”; and he seems to have been moved partly by vanity, wishing to show +the King and Cromwell that he could do anything with the northern +gentlemen. He boasted that if he had known them before as he did now +Levening would not still be alive[663]. + +The juries were sworn, the Duke addressed them, and they retired +separately. Shortly they returned and found the indictments “billa +vera.” The fate of the Pilgrims was soon decided, for if the chance of +acquittal by their own friends was small, with a London jury it would be +smaller still. + +The business of the court was not yet done. After the indictments of the +Pilgrims the case was taken of two Carthusian monks who denied the +King’s supremacy. These were John Rochester and James Whalworth of the +London Charterhouse, who had been sent to the Charterhouse at Hull. +Rochester had written to Norfolk in March, offering to explain before +the Duke and his council how much the King was deceived by those who +persuaded him to assume the title of Supreme Head of the Church of +England; he begged Norfolk to help him to the King’s presence, for he +would rather die than hide the truth[664]. Norfolk forwarded the letter +to Cromwell, remarking rather peevishly that the monk should never have +been sent north, as he had always expressed his opinions openly, and +that he certainly ought to be “justified” in the south[665]. Norfolk, +however, was obliged to see to both of them himself. They might have +recanted at their trial, but they both stood firm. “Two more wilful +religious men in manner unlearned I think never suffered,” wrote +Norfolk. They were condemned to be executed on Friday 11 May[666]. + +The indictments were despatched to London, where they were received in +plenty of time for the trials, which began on Tuesday 15 May 1537. + +NOTES TO CHAPTER XVIII + + Note A. Staveley’s dates are entirely incomprehensible. We have done + our best to construct a reasonable chronology from the facts. + + Note B. It is not clear from the accounts whether Sir Christopher + Dacre came up and attacked the commons in the rear, or whether he was + already in the town. Wilfred Holme says that five hundred horse “came + forth” from the city; as he does not give the names of the leaders, he + may have been thinking of Thomas Clifford’s troop, which certainly + came out of the castle. On the whole it seems most probable that Dacre + was not in Carlisle but came upon the rebels while riding to the + relief of the town. + + Note C. The problem of the fate of Holm Cultram Abbey is rather + curious. Abbot Carter had undoubtedly taken part in the second + insurrection. Yet he was never attainted, for on the attainder of an + abbot the King seized the abbey, as in the cases of Whalley and + Barlings, but Holm Cultram was surrendered by the Abbot and monks on 6 + March 1537–8[667]. The Abbot who conducted this surrender was Gawen + Borrodale, a monk of the house who had been accused of poisoning a + former abbot, Abbot Ireby[668]. Borrodale had been appointed before 23 + January 1537–8[669]. It is possible that Abbot Carter escaped + attainder by a natural death. Gasquet suggests this, but confuses + Carter with his predecessor, Ireby[670]. + + Note D. The third of Aske’s papers is entered separately in the + Letters and Papers, but it was obviously written before his + imprisonment, and should probably be placed with the other two. + + Note E. On 13 May 1537 the King desired the Duke of Norfolk to go in + person to suppress the Priory of Bridlington and the Abbey of + Jervaux[671], as the Duke had offered to perform the work, if it was + the King’s pleasure, in a letter of 10 May:—“I think I should be at + the suppressing because the neighbouring country is populous and the + houses greatly beloved by the people, and also well stored with cattle + and other things that will not come all to light so well if I be + absent.” He suggested that he should take with him Mr Magnus, Sir + George Lawson, Leonard Beckwith, Blytheman and his own two servants + Uvedale and Rous, to survey the lands. He remarked frankly, “these men + look for none of the farms, and therefore will see to your profit.” + + Jervaux was “well covered with lead,” and as to Bridlington, Norfolk + went into raptures over the roofs there. “It has a barn all covered + with lead, the largest, widest, and deepest roofed that ever I saw.” + Altogether there must be at least three or four thousand pounds’ worth + of lead, and that so near the sea that it could be easily taken + away[672]. Norfolk was at Bridlington from 16 to 18 May. Inventories + were made of all the goods and the best part were sent to + Sheriffhutton. The priory church of Bridlington was also the parish + church for 1500 “houseling people” [communicants]; Norfolk suggested + that part of the land might be granted to the parishioners, to keep up + the church and the shrine of St John, and to repair the harbour, which + was a dangerous place[673]. + + Even in the matter of the monasteries, Norfolk was not entirely + trusted. Cromwell wrote that commissioners would be sent down from + court to survey the lands, estimate the value of the lead, and so + forth. If £20 would repair the haven, it might be done. The King did + not intend to make grants of the land till Michaelmas, when he would + put in substantial men to comfort the tenants and stay the country. As + to the shrine, it was to be taken down, in order that the people might + not be seduced into offering money there; all the jewels and plate + were to be sent direct to London, except such as Norfolk chose to buy. + The cattle and corn might be sold at once[674]. These orders were + executed before 5 June, when Tristram Teshe carried to London the + tenths and two chests full of the gold and jewels taken from the + Bridlington shrine. Among them were three “wrought tablets” of which + Norfolk wrote to the King “if I durst ... be a thief I would have + stolen them to have sent them to the Queen’s Grace, but now your + Highness having them may give them unto her without offence.” There + was also “a proper thing of _radix Jesse_ to be set upon an altar.” + There remained the silver plate; Norfolk said contemptuously that it + was very old and had better be broken up[675], and no doubt it was + destroyed according to his advice. The church itself is said to have + been demolished[676]. + + Jervaux was disposed of in as short a time; the monks had been + dispossessed by Norfolk before 31 May, and Sir George Lawson, Robert + Bowes, Blytheman and others were left in charge. The abbey church was + covered with lead, half of which belonged to the parishioners. Norfolk + made a choice selection from the spoils, including a ring, a silver + cross and censers. Beckwith, who carried letters to London, was + charged to give the King “this stone called the best stone.” “Item, + after this manner all men will be desirous to see dissolution.”[677] + It is a matter for conjecture whether the defrauded parishioners were + so well satisfied, or whether they received their own part of the lead + and preferred that to their parish church. Sir Arthur Darcy, in a + letter to Cromwell of 8 June, commended Jervaux as “one of the fairest + churches I have seen, fair meadows and the river running by it and a + great demesne.” He thought that Jervaux would be a better place for + the King’s stud of mares than Thornbury[678]. If this arrangement + would have saved the abbey it is a pity it was not carried out. + + When Richard Pollard surveyed Bridlington in June, it is satisfactory + to learn that he found most of the movables had been stolen by the + poor folk of the neighbourhood[679]. + + Note F. It has been suggested to us that if we are neither satisfied + with the jury of enemies nor with the jury of friends, it is because + whatever the government did is wrong in our eyes. The third + possibility, a jury of indifferent men, does not seem to have occurred + to our critic. Norfolk had all the gentlemen of the north to choose + from; and if it be urged that indifferent men would be difficult to + find at such a time of political excitement, still he could easily + have avoided the Pilgrims’ near relatives, and enemies who had + actually given evidence against them on the charge that was being + tried. (For Rudston’s evidence against Constable see L. and P. XII + (1), 1130; for Saville’s evidence against Darcy see L. and P. XII (1), + 1087 (p. 497).) It is true that to appoint an indifferent jury is a + counsel of perfection which in similar circumstances would very likely + not be followed in our own age. If Norfolk had merely named two juries + of loyalists, we should not have called it justice, but it would have + been so natural and indeed inevitable as to merit no special comment. + It appears to us that Norfolk’s actual proceedings, as set forth in + his own letters, were very far from natural, and were deliberately + calculated to give the greatest possible pain both to the accused and + to those jurors who were forced either to condemn their relatives or + to show “their cankered hearts” to a jealous government. And we + believe that “outrage” would not be considered too strong a word for + his conduct by most honest men either in that age or our own. + + + + + CHAPTER XIX + THE KING’S PEACE + + +The Act for the Suppression of the Monasteries may be compared to a +stone flung into a pool, where its fall causes first a wave, then circle +beyond circle of ripples, each one fainter than the last. After the wave +of revolt had passed, there followed a succession of conspiracies, none +showing any promise of success, and each giving the King an excuse for +further bloodshed. + +Lancashire was not included in Norfolk’s commission, but disturbances +had taken place there which the King was not inclined to overlook. +Towards the end of February 1536–7 he sent down Robert Ratcliff, Earl of +Sussex, as his lieutenant in those parts, jointly with the Earl of +Derby[680]. In January Sussex had married for a second time; the lady +was Mary daughter of Sir John Arundel. “Some are glad of it, and some +sorry, for the gentlewoman’s sake,” wrote John Husee[681]. + +On 18 February Sussex was preparing to set out for Lancashire[682]. The +instructions provided for himself and his fellow lieutenant were similar +to Norfolk’s. They must administer the oath, first to the gentlemen, +then to the commons. They must seek out the beginners of the +insurrection, and punish all offenders since the pardon. The monks were +to be expelled, their evil lives exposed, and the article in their +favour which had been promised at Doncaster must be explained away. The +Lieutenants were also to reform any pressing grievances as to enclosures +and fines, and to discover the full strength of Lancashire and Cheshire +when mustered[683]. + +Sussex, with Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, reached Warrington on Monday 26 +February. Next day the Earl of Derby and the gentlemen appointed to form +the Lieutenants’ council joined them, together with most of those who +were on the commission of oyer and terminer. The meeting was held at the +Friary, where the new oath was taken, and proclamation was made that all +complaints would be heard. Next day the commons took the oath with great +good will, and on Thursday the Lieutenants went on the same business to +Manchester, whence they would proceed to Preston and Lancaster. A +refugee from Carlisle, who was spreading the rumour about a tax on +ploughs, christenings, and burials, was brought before them. They were +anxious to execute him, but were obliged to postpone the matter, as the +offence had been committed in another county[684]. + +Sussex was at Lancaster during the first weeks of March, very busy with +the assizes. His expedition was particularly aimed against the +religious; he boasted to Cromwell that he was keeping his promise “for +the punishment of such traitorous monks.”[685] Whalley was the first +house to be attacked. No documents concerning its fall remain, except +some examinations of monks about the sale of the abbey plate[686], but +the accusations against the abbot were bound up with the affairs of +Sawley. It has been shown that Sir Arthur Darcy occupied Sawley and +arrested the abbot. He took some depositions against the house, but +these are lost. There was evidence against the abbot without them; his +supplication had been found among Sir Thomas Percy’s papers, and his +servant Shuttleworth had made his confession[687]. + +Shuttleworth was sent up to London and examined there on 23 February, +when he told all the details of his mission to Percy[688]. At the same +time Sir Arthur Darcy arrested the abbot. No doubt this alarmed the +scattered brethren, and Richard Estgate, the abbot’s chaplain[689] who +had been in his confidence, fled to Whalley Abbey, where his brother +John Estgate was a monk. According to Sanders the fugitive reached +Whalley while the brethren were at supper, and was sheltered by the +monks unknown to the abbot, yet for this offence alone the abbot of +Whalley was hanged[690]. This story receives some confirmation from the +fact that Richard Estgate, a monk of Sawley, was hanged at Whalley the +day after the abbot’s execution, in company with William Heydock, a monk +of Whalley, ten laymen and some of the canons of Cartmell[691]. + +The indictment of the abbot has not been discovered among the records of +riots, thefts and so forth which were tried at the spring assizes in +Lancaster that year, but it is known that John Paslew, twenty-fifth and +last abbot of Whalley, was convicted of high treason before the Earls of +Sussex and Derby and was executed at Whalley on 10 March 1536–7, “in a +field opposite his birth-place.”[692] Stow says that John Estgate was +executed with the abbot[693], but this is a mistake, as John Estgate +went to the monastery of his order at Nethe on the dispersal of the +brethren[694]. Stow must have confused John with his brother Richard +Estgate, the monk of Sawley. Sussex believed that the abbot of Whalley’s +conviction was brought about by a special providence, because he had so +many friends that it might have proved difficult; “it will be a terror +to corrupt minds hereafter.”[695] + +It is not known when the abbot of Sawley suffered or whether any of his +brethren were with him. He was within Norfolk’s not Sussex’ +jurisdiction, and the King sent special orders that matter must be found +against him[696]. There is only one reference to his death. Sir Stephen +Hamerton, examined in the Tower on 25 April 1537, related that “the +abbot [of Sawley] when condemned to die, sent to ask his forgiveness for +having named him in the said letter [the supplication] ... this Sir +Arthur Darcy can himself show.”[697] The abbot’s “most sinister +back-friend” was with him at the last. In the end of the Coucher Book of +Sawley Abbey are written some latin verses which have been regarded as a +lament for the death of the last abbot. Examination shows, however, that +they cannot be interpreted as referring to him, for the writing is of +too early a character, and is probably not later than the beginning of +the sixteenth century. The verses are, in fact, a short poem on the +Crucifixion, but Whitaker, who printed an incorrect copy of them, +thought they contained an allusion to the death of the last abbot, and +Harland, the historian of the abbey, accepted Whitaker’s conjecture. The +version printed by both these antiquaries is unintelligible; a new +transcript is given below[698]. + +According to some accounts the abbot of Sawley was executed at Lancaster +but this must be a mistake arising from a confusion between the two +abbots of Whalley and Sawley. It is said that the prior of Sawley was +executed with the abbot[699]. There is no proof of this, but it is not +improbable. + +However many Sussex executed, there were still some who escaped him. +These included the sub-prior and two brethren of Cartmell, Captain +Atkinson, the bailiffs of Dent, Milnthorpe and Kendal, and four or five +more[700]. Atkinson and the bailiff of Kendal, however, were afterwards +captured by Norfolk. Atkinson was betrayed by “his own sister’s +son.”[701] + +Sussex wrote to Norfolk that Sir Richard Tempest “was neither good first +nor last”; his brother Nicholas and his servants were the first men who +stirred Lancashire. As for the present state of the country, “as long as +the world standeth this will be a dreadful example”; the commons were +sorrowful for their offences and meekly made submission[702]. + +In a letter to the King written on 11 March 1536–7, but now lost, Sussex +told the story of an old man, who, on being condemned as a traitor, made +lamentation at the bar, crying out that he had thrice served the King +against the Scots. The Lieutenants, whether from pity or policy, +respited him and referred the matter to their master. Henry replied that +he took their action in good part, but none was more worthy to suffer +than a man who had so often taken the King’s wages. In this letter, +dated 17 March, the King heartily thanked the Earls for their diligence +in redressing the grievances of true subjects and in punishing corrupt +ones. He was especially pleased with their seizure of the goods of +Whalley Abbey, and the execution of the abbot. As the house had been so +evil, he thought it would be better in his own hands; the crown was +entitled to it, as he explained, by the attainder of the abbot. The +Earls were to persuade the monks to enter other houses, as they would be +safer there than wandering about the country. If some would not consent +to this, they might be given capacities. Above all the Earls must take +care that the abbey goods were not embezzled[703]. + +On 21 March 1536–7 Sussex wrote to Cromwell from Preston. He had been +very busy with the assize work, but expected to have finished it in five +or six days. He needed the King’s letters for bestowing the monks of +Whalley; after that was arranged, there would be no longer any need of +his presence in Lancashire. He did not believe horse meat and man’s meat +could be so hard to get in any other shire in England. He would leave +the people in very good obedience, but he thought the monks of Furness +had been concerned in the insurrection. Cromwell had asked for Richard +Estgate’s confession, but neither before nor after his condemnation +could the Earl bring him to accuse anyone, save that he once said +Nicholas Tempest was a great favourer of the house of Sawley[704]. +Henry’s nobles always hated being sent to the north, which they +naturally regarded as “the last place God made,” in a phrase of the +time. Sussex did his best to earn a speedy recall and a sunny welcome to +court, and the monks suffered in consequence. + +Furness was the next house to which the Earl turned his attention. On 14 +March 1536–7 Alexander Richardson, the bailiff of Dalton, deposed what +he knew against the monks. His evidence as to the first rebellion was +all hearsay; he was told that their tenants had been summoned to come +out with horse and harness, that the abbot had “taken a way to be sure +both of King and commons,” and that money had been sent to the rebel +host. About a fortnight before he made his deposition a friar told him +that one of the monks named Henry Sawley had said, “there should be no +lay knave head of the Church.” Meeting the same friar on 13 March, just +after the execution of the abbot and monks of Whalley, the bailiff asked +what was likely to happen to Dan Henry Sawley “now at my lords’ being +here?” The friar answered, “Nothing, I will say nothing.”[705] This +friar was Robert Legate, who had been “put into that monastery of +Furness to read and preach to the brethren,” and also, probably, to act +as one of Cromwell’s spies[706]. Sussex received orders from the King to +“search out the whole truth” about the disloyalty of the Furness monks +and to imprison them till further orders were sent. The King enclosed +letters for the brethren of Whalley to go to other houses, but those who +wished to go to Jervaux must choose another place, as that abbey was +likely to be suppressed for the same offence as their own. Those who had +chosen capacities might be given “bedding, chamber stuff and some +money.” Richard Estgate must be sent to London, for Sir Arthur Darcy +knew such matter against him as might lead him to confess[707]; but the +monk was already hanged. The affairs of Whalley were soon despatched, +and an inventory of the plate and goods was taken on 24 March[708]. The +prior, a man of eighty, who had been fifty years a monk, begged that he +might be appointed to the parish church; Sussex thought this would be +charitable, and the prior was not likely to live long[709]. + +Sussex attended to this suppression, while Derby was still at Preston +sitting in justice. The Abbot of Furness was ordered to attend at +Whalley, and beheld the ruin that was soon to overtake his own house. +The commissioners made every effort, but they could find only two out of +his thirty-three brethren who had offended since the pardon. A good deal +of evidence was produced by Robert Legate, the vicar of Dalton, and the +abbot himself. The monks had repeated prophecies which were supposed to +foretell the King’s death[710]. They had favoured the Pilgrims and one +of them had spoken against the supremacy since the pardon. Dan Henry +Sawley, who used to speak slanderously against the King when overcome +with ale, was committed to Lancaster Castle, with another of the monks. +Robert Legate did not say “nothing,” but accused him of traitorous +words, and related that when he, Legate, preached a sermon commending +the King’s just laws, Sawley said “it was a marvel that God did not take +vengeance of us both, of him for his preaching and of us for hearing +him.” Legate accused the abbot of ordering the monks to make no +complaints to the King’s commissioners; another charge was that he +concealed Sawley’s traitorous words about the “lay knave” who was head +of the Church[711]. + +The abbot had boasted that he had made himself safe both with King and +commons; but now he was in the gravest peril, while a brother abbot was +not a fortnight dead. He must have gone to Whalley full of the darkest +fears and eager to clutch at any chance of escape. Those who had +anything to give and were weak enough to give it could often buy a +pardon from the King. The abbot was again examined before Sussex, more +straitly than ever. Still nothing could be found that would “serve the +purpose,” and the Earl wrote to the King quite frankly that, one way +failing, he sought out another to dispose of the monks, that the abbey +“might be at your gracious pleasure.” Sussex suggested to the abbot that +he might surrender the house of his own free will. The abbot was “very +facile,” and wrote out a form of surrender immediately in the presence +of Sussex and his council[712]. He said that with their aid the brethren +might be brought to ratify it under the convent seal. Three knights were +sent off to take charge of the house, and to see that nothing was +embezzled. Sussex proposed to follow them shortly[713]. Henry was +entirely satisfied with this prudent conduct of the affairs of Furness; +he ordered inventories to be taken of the goods and jewels of the house, +and arrangements to be made for the confiscation of the lands. The monks +were to be dealt with as in the case of Whalley; the Earl might allow +them apparel and “other things as be of no great value,” considering the +King’s profit, “and yet rid the said monks in such honest sort as all +parties shall be therewith contented.”[714] So anxious were Sussex and +his council to make no blunders about the King’s claim that no less than +three forms of surrender were drawn up[715]. The final suppression of +Furness Abbey did not take place until July[716]. + +Besides the trial of offenders and the suppression of monasteries, +Sussex had a third duty to perform, the collection of evidence against +the leaders of the Pilgrimage. A clue was provided when a copy of +Norfolk’s letter to Darcy about the second meeting at Doncaster[717] was +discovered in the chamber of Randolph Lynney, the vicar of +Blackburn[718]. Lynney was imprisoned in Lancaster Castle. While Sussex +was at Whalley he sent for the vicar and examined him as to how he +obtained the letter. This examination is lost, but there is one still +extant which was taken at the same time. This second prisoner was +William Talbot, one of Darcy’s servants[719]. Before the second +appointment at Doncaster Talbot had been sent from Templehurst into +Lancashire with letters to the Abbot of Whalley. Among them he brought +the copy of Norfolk’s letter, which had been given to him by one of +Aske’s servants. It must have been sent as definite proof that Norfolk +had consented to a meeting, and the vicar of Blackburn must have +received it from the abbot. + +Talbot was a Lancashire man, and had Darcy’s orders to raise the +country, but not, probably, unless the negotiations fell through. The +vicar of Blackburn was ready to help him, and said that if the commons +rose again “he would bear the cross afore them and said God speed them +well in their journey,” but, receiving no further orders, Talbot +remained quietly in Lancashire until Sussex sought him out. He recalled +a number of anecdotes and sayings of Darcy’s, but they all related to +the period covered by the pardon, as Talbot had never seen his master +since the second appointment. Nevertheless they are endorsed “Talbot’s +Confession against Lord Darcy, traitor.”[720] On 8 April 1537 Sussex +sent to Cromwell this document and the vicar of Blackburn’s lost +confession[721], together with the depositions of the monks of Whalley +about the sale of plate[722], some evidence against William Colyns +bailiff of Kendal[723], and Dr Dakyn’s letter to the Prior of +Cartmell[724]. Information was also required against the Tempests[725], +whom Sussex believed to be very blameworthy. + +The King was delighted with all this evidence, and particularly with +Dakyn’s letter, by which another monastery might be brought into his +hands. Sussex received gracious permission to return to court when the +affairs of Furness were settled, and the King promised that the abbey +lands should not be bestowed without the Earl’s advice[726]. Sussex set +out for London about 18 April. Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, his companion, +sent Cromwell a eulogistic account of the wisdom and diligence by which +he had brought Lancashire into perfect obedience[727]. + +At the same time as the Lancashire assizes the prisoners at Lincoln were +being tried and put to death. The insurgents there may have shown +weakness at the crisis of their attempt, but the expiation of their +failure was very terrible. The swift execution that the King had +designed for them would have been more merciful than the long winter of +captivity during which their fortune swung between life and death. In +order to understand the circumstances it is necessary to go back to 12 +October 1536, when Suffolk sent up to the King the names of the +gentlemen who had surrendered themselves at his camp. They were all the +principal commissioners who had been taken by the commons, Tyrwhit, +Skipwith, the Dymmokes and the rest[728]. + +The King’s lieutenants, the Duke of Suffolk and the Earl of Shrewsbury, +were anxious to treat the matter as an ordinary riot. A certain number +of the commons might be executed, and the whole affair forgotten. They +both assured the King of the gentlemen’s loyalty[729]. Henry was not so +easily satisfied. The inclination of the gentlemen to join the rebels +was the most dangerous feature of the situation, and on 15 October he +sent orders that they were all to be examined. Those whose conduct had +been suspicious must be sent up to London; the rest might be “dismissed +with good words,” but they were to remain in Suffolk’s custody until the +commons had surrendered their weapons. Hudswell and Cutler must be sent +up to London, and the Lieutenant might keep for execution four captains +of Louth, three of Horncastle and two of Caistor as a beginning[730]. + +Suffolk reported that the sheriff, Edward Dymmoke, had already presented +to him “an arrant traitor,” who was in ward at Stamford and would be +executed in two or three days[731], but this did not satisfy Henry. He +suspected that the gentlemen would persuade Suffolk to execute out of +hand the commons who could bear evidence against them. He therefore +instructed his Lieutenant to be cautious as to whom he hanged. Also he +was not to execute one alone, but to proceed as instructed at Louth, +Horncastle and elsewhere with “as many of the common traitors as shall +seem requisite.” No gentlemen need be executed there. Any who had +notably offended must be sent up to London[732]. Henry despatched his +answer to the Lincolnshire petition on 19 October. In it the number of +victims necessary to satisfy the royal vengeance was appointed at a +hundred[733]. + +Hitherto the King had felt no serious doubt that he could do as he liked +in Lincolnshire, and he seems to have reproached Suffolk with slackness, +in that not a single execution had yet taken place. But at this point +the effect of the rising in Yorkshire began to be experienced. Suffolk +dared not hang men; he dared not even “take them cruelly,” or +Lincolnshire would join Yorkshire[734]. Nevertheless he proceeded slowly +with the examinations. Cutler, Hudswell, and Lord Hussey were sent up to +London on 18 October[735]. The confession of Abbot Mackerell of Barlings +was taken on 20 October[736], and numbers of others followed[737]. + +On 22 October it was known at court that two hundred men of Louth had +taken the oath to the King and surrendered fifteen of their ringleaders, +including Nicholas Melton, otherwise Captain Cobbler[738]. On the same +day Horncastle submitted. Suffolk prepared books of the examinations to +be sent to the King and apologised for the delay in the executions. “We +have so much to do that we cannot possibly provide for all things,” but +he promised that the traitors should receive their full deserts in +time[739], and sent lists of the gentlemen who had taken the King’s oath +and of the rebels whom he held prisoner[740]. The King sent back a list +of the points on which the prisoners must be interrogated in order to +reveal the complicity of the gentlemen[741]. Wriothesley was disgusted +that they were not to be sent up to London for examination[742], but the +King did not wish to alarm the gentlemen, who might still escape to +Yorkshire. George Hudswell, however, who had already been sent up, was +examined[743], and, probably on his accusation, Thomas Moigne was +arrested and sent to London on 26 October. Richard Cromwell informed his +uncle of Moigne’s arrest. His letter contains one of those minor +mysteries which cannot be explained. “This night, by my Lord’s command I +have, with much business, taken George Wyndessor.”[744] Perhaps the +business involved the wounding of the captive so severely that he did +not survive; at any rate his name is never mentioned again, although +Richard Cromwell attached so much importance to his arrest. + +The council at Lincoln still used the gentlemen very gently. Cromwell’s +servants looked forward to more rigorous measures[745], when the first +appointment at Doncaster stopped the proceedings altogether. Norfolk’s +letter, which announced the truce to the Privy Council, concluded “for +God’s sake help that his Highness cause not my lord of Suffolk put any +man to death unto my coming.”[746] The prisoners were kept in the castle +at Lincoln[747]. Only one man is known to have been executed[748], but +it is probable that some others suffered at this time, just before the +first appointment. There were rumours to that effect[749], and it is +significant that the names of Nicholas Melton (Captain Cobbler) and +Thomas Foster the singing-man of Louth never occur after their +examination on 21 October. It is not likely that they were spared. The +probability is that they and perhaps others were executed without any +record of their death. The Abbot of Barlings was saved from execution by +the truce[750]. After the truce the examination of the prisoners +continued[751]. + +On 14 November 1536 the King sent a pardon to be proclaimed in +Lincolnshire for all except the prisoners[752], of whom there were at +this time about 140 in Lincoln Castle and more in the town[753]. After +this nothing more is heard of them, except that they were safely +guarded[754], until 12 January 1536–7. By that time twelve, including +the Abbot of Barlings, had been removed from Lincoln to the Tower, where +they were examined again[755]. + +There was still a party in Lincolnshire eager for a new rising. Aske was +told “that if any power had come [from Yorkshire] into Lincolnshire +before the agreement at Doncaster, the commons of Lincolnshire would +have taken their part.”[756] There are traces of a plot for a new +rebellion in January 1536–7[757]. The leader of the project was William +Leache, who, though he had been excepted from the pardon, had never been +captured. A man who carried messages from him was taken and sent to the +Duke of Norfolk before 14 February[758]. Leache’s two brothers, Nicholas +vicar of Belchford, and Robert, were among the prisoners, and the long +delay, during which it seemed sometimes that the prisoners would be +freed, sometimes that they must die, could not but produce an attempt in +their favour, but it came to nothing. + +On Monday 5 March Sir William Parre arrived at Lincoln to try the +rebels. After him came Sir Walter Luke, Serjeant Hinde, William Horwood +the King’s Solicitor, and the gentlemen of the county who were royal +commissioners; they were all royalists. The trials were not disgraced by +the unnatural proceedings which had characterised Norfolk’s assizes at +York[759]. + +There were now a hundred prisoners in the charge of the sheriff[760], +exactly the number which the King had named[761]. Yet in November 1536 +there had been over 140. It is unknown what became of the rest. Perhaps +they were discharged; perhaps they died in the overcrowded and +insanitary prisons; perhaps some of them were executed, for it was +reported in Yorkshire in February that “they were busily hanged” in +Lincolnshire[762]. + +Thirty-four prisoners were brought to trial on the morning of Tuesday 6 +March 1536–7. In spite of the King’s efforts to discover the guilt of +the gentlemen, only one of them appeared among the prisoners, Thomas +Moigne the lawyer, who served as a scape-goat for the rest. His +execution was desirable, from Henry’s point of view, as he was a very +able man, but in one way it would have been safer to select a less +capable victim, as he “for three hours held plea with such subtle +allegations, that if Sergeant Hinde and the Solicitor had not acquitted +themselves like true servants to the King and profound learned men, he +had troubled and in a manner evict all the rest.”[763] Moigne’s labour, +however, was thrown away, as all the prisoners were condemned[764]. + +The sentence cannot be described as unjust. Not only according to Tudor +laws, but by any law, it is treason to bear arms against the government, +or to give aid to rebels. The prisoner may plead that he acted from +fear, or in the hope that he might acquire sufficient influence over the +rebels to make them alter their intentions, but if the judge does not +choose to listen to the plea, he may be blamed for harshness but not for +injustice. The lives of the Lincolnshire men were forfeit, for they had +made no terms. When they had weapons in their hands they had not tried +to save themselves, and now they paid the penalty. + +Among the condemned were fourteen laymen, including Moigne and Guy +Kyme[765], who acted as an intermediary between Yorkshire and +Lincolnshire, six parish priests, including Thomas Yoell a native of +Louth but priest of Sotby, who was aged and blind[766], four monks of +Barlings, six monks of Bardney, three monks of Kirkstead and Richard +Harrison the Abbot of Kirkstead. All the monks of Kirkstead had been +with the host, and the abbot sent money and food, though he excused +himself as he was ill. The monks said in their defence that the commons +had threatened to burn the house if they did not come, and that the +abbot rejoiced when they came back and thanked God that there had been +no business[767]. + +Moigne, Kyme and the abbot were executed at Lincoln on Wednesday 7 March +1536–7. Moigne suffered the full penalty, but the other two were only +hanged[768]. + +Meanwhile on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning the other +sixty-four prisoners were tried. They were found guilty and condemned, +but apparently it was understood that they were not to be executed, and +the court presented a formal petition that the King would show them +mercy[769]. They were all laymen[770], and among them may be noticed +Robert Horncliff and Anthony Curtis, whose adventures have already been +related[771]. Curtis was indicted but not arraigned, “because it is +thought he is within the compass of the pardon and would plead it.”[772] +The other two prisoners who made up the hundred were Roger New of +Horncastle, who was in the Tower[773], and Robert Carre of Sleaford, who +had been discharged by Cromwell’s orders[774]. The goods of all the +prisoners were forfeited to the King by their attainder. Sir William +Tyrwhit, the new sheriff, petitioned for the property of Guy Kyme in +recompense for his expenses over the prisoners[775]. + +Those who had been pardoned were set at liberty upon sureties. The rest +of the condemned were executed on Friday 9 March at Horncastle and on +Saturday 10 March at Louth, before all the people assembled for the +market[776]. The country was then reported to be in perfect quiet, and +Parre proceeded to take inventories of the lands and goods of Kirkstead +and Barlings. A monk had been discovered at Bardney who had not been +tried at the last assize, and Parre wished to know what was to be done +with him[777]. + +The first business of the court at Lincoln of 5 March had been to find a +true bill for high treason against the twelve prisoners in the Tower, +Matthew Mackerell Abbot of Barlings, Thomas Kendall vicar of Louth[778], +Thomas Ratford vicar of Snelland[779], Robert Southbye[780], George +Hudswell[781], Roger New[782], Bernard Fletcher[783], Brian +Staines[784], Philip Trotter[785], Nicholas Leache[786], Robert +Leache[787], and William Burreby alias Morland the monk of Louth +Park[788]. The prisoners were brought up for trial at the Guildhall on +Monday 26 March 1537. The charge was that they + + “did on Monday 2 October [1536] 28 Henry VIII at Louth riotously + assemble with others in great numbers, compassing and imagining the + death of the King; and for that intent held a discourse amongst + themselves that they with a great multitude and power would rule and + govern the King against his will and deprive him of his royal liberty + and power, and subvert and annul divers statutes ordained in the reign + of the said King for the common weal and government of England; and + for such purpose did levy war against the King. And that they with + arms, etc., levied war against the King, and slew divers of the lieges + who refused to fulfil their traitorous intent; and made proclamations, + and rang the common bells and so assembled 4000 persons until + Wednesday 4 October, when, having chosen captains and assembled 6000 + persons, they proceeded to Caistor and compelled Sir Robert Tyrwhit + and his fellow justices, then holding sessions there, to fly, and took + certain of the said justices. Further, that the said Leache, etc., + continued in arms, etc., at Louth, Caistor, Legbourne and elsewhere + from that Wednesday until the Thursday following, when they assembled + at Towys to the number of 10,000 persons, and thence on the following + Friday, to the number of 12,000 with banners displayed, went towards + Lincoln and continued the same day in a field at Netlam, called Netlam + Field, at war against the King. And thus the said Leache, etc., + compassed and imagined the King’s death, etc.”[789] + +The prisoners pleaded “not guilty” but were all found guilty and +condemned to death. The sentence was carried out with the usual +barbarities at Tyburn on 29 March 1537, and the bodies were buried at +Pardon Churchyard by the Charterhouse[790]. + +These were all the prisoners from Lincolnshire who are known to have +been executed. There were a few others whose fate is unknown. William +Longbottom was examined in the Tower on 12 January 1536–7, but he was +not among those tried at the Guildhall[791]. A canon of Barlings was in +the Tower on 18 March 1536–7[792], but he has no further history, and no +directions concerning the monk of Bardney, about whom Parre wrote, have +been preserved. + +The most interesting of the sufferers is Matthew Mackerell Bishop of +Chalcedon and Abbot of Barlings. He is described as a man of remarkable +eloquence. In 1524 he preached the funeral sermon of the old Duke of +Norfolk, and so moving was his discourse on death and the Resurrection +that the whole congregation was seized with a dread that the dead duke +was about to rise from his coffin, and all rushed tumultuously from the +church[793]. It is singular that priestly eloquence played so small a +part in the rebellion. Several of the laymen could sway multitudes by +their speech, but the only two instances of priests using this their +chosen weapon were the “collation” of Thomas Kendall the vicar of Louth +and Archbishop Lee’s unfortunate sermon at Pontefract. Abbot Mackerell +might have been a powerful ally and his gift must have made him a +special object of dread to the King. According to all the historians +before and including Froude, the Abbot played a distinguished part in +the rising, although he was not, as some chroniclers imagined, Captain +Cobbler. Recently, however, it has been pointed out that his activity +was much less than had been supposed. As his is in a sense a test case, +it may be as well to go into it in detail. + +The Abbot of Barlings was accused of having had foreknowledge of the +rebellion, because about a month before it broke out he had sent away +much of the plate and ornaments of the monastery to be hidden in the +houses of laymen[794]. To this charge he replied that when the King’s +surveyors were seizing the goods of the lesser monasteries, it was +reported that after Michaelmas they would return and take those of the +greater houses, beginning at Barlings. When he heard this he called the +brethren together and advised them to make provision for themselves by +selling their plate and vestments, as the government pension was only +40_s._ a-piece. The monks agreed and he proceeded to sell the +plate[795]. This was not very honest dealing, as the possessions of the +monastery did not, of course, belong to the individual monks. On the +other hand, neither did they belong to the King, who had received the +lesser monasteries, but not the greater, by Act of Parliament. It was +easy for the monks to persuade themselves that they had a better right +to the valuables than the King. Nevertheless the abbot can be acquitted +of treason only by acknowledging embezzlement. + +Second, he was charged with inciting the commons to plunder the house of +John Freeman, one of the surveyors, and to murder Freeman himself[796]. +This charge rested only on Freeman’s own assertion, and therefore is not +worthy of consideration. + +Third, he was accused of having aided and encouraged the rebels. He +confessed that he had aided them by the gift of provisions and money, +but he protested that he acted through fear, weeping and trembling in a +far from encouraging manner. The main charge was that when he brought +the provisions to the rebel host, he urged the captains to proclaim what +he had brought. He defended this by saying that he hoped the +proclamation would appease the commons and prevent them from demanding +more[797]. His words were, “Masters, I have according to your +commandment brought you victual, beseeching you to be good unto me and +preserve my house from spoil, and if ye will let me have a passport I +will go to a lordship of mine called Sweton, where, against your coming +to Ancaster Heath, I will prepare for you as much more victual”[798]; +but it was reported that he said, “Go forward and stick to this matter,” +and the messengers to Beverley told the Yorkshire men of the abbot’s +great present and his comfortable words[799]. + +The case of Abbot Mackerell is typical of those of the other abbots and +religious men who were involved in the rebellion. It is curious that +their most ardent apologists dwell particularly on the small share that +the monks took in it, as this does not at first sight appear to be to +their credit. The Pilgrims were putting themselves, “lives, wives, +children, lands, goods and chattels ... to the utter adventure of total +destruction,” on behalf of the monks. In return they were received with +terror, helped grudgingly, and dismissed as soon as possible. Their +champions might risk their all, but the monks would risk nothing in +return if they could help it. They were ready to share the fruits of +victory, but they had no mind to suffer for a possible defeat. The +attitude of the Abbot of Furness was only too common—they wanted to be +safe with both sides. + +In extenuation it may be urged that the arrival of a band of rebels at a +monastery was often indistinguishable from the arrival of a gang of +marauders. At the beginning of the rebellion, moreover, the commons +often compelled the monks to serve in their ranks, which was contrary to +the monastic vow; it is not suggested that the religious should have +borne arms, but that they might have been more liberal of money, +encouragement and prayers. + +Then too the monks were landowners, sharing all the interests and +terrors of the propertied class. They might on the whole be better +landlords than laymen were, but in individual cases they had aroused +hatred, and they feared the consequences. The Abbot of Jervaux’s tenants +were ready to murder him. Mackerell said that many of the commons were +his mortal enemies[800]. The poor were groping towards a policy of their +own, that they would defend the monasteries if the landlords would +remedy their grievances. The religious were not farsighted enough to +understand and adopt this policy. They would not take part with the +commons; they were merely afraid of them and thought that somebody ought +to keep them in order. They did not see that by their own faith they +might convert a disorderly rabble into a body of crusaders. It was not +impossible; the miracle had been wrought before and would be again, but +the English religious of that age were not the men to perform it. They +were in the main worthy creatures enough, but incapable of either a +martyr’s complete self-abnegation or a rebel’s courage and decision: + + “The life of the monastery was cut off from the life of the nation. + Narrowness of sympathy was the most serious fault of the monk. He had + little interest in what went on outside the abbey close. He had + nothing to care for or to work for, except the maintenance of the + wealth and position of his house. His whole life was spent in its + corridors and gardens, except when he was sent out in company with + another brother to gather the rents of its distant estates, or to + accompany the abbot on his occasional visit to London. He spent all + his waking hours in company with several score of other men, as singly + devoted as he was himself to the interests of the place.... It is not + wonderful that he developed a narrowness of mind which made him, in + questions of local or national interest, a dead weight on + society.”[801] + +When the order came for the monks to go, they lamented—and accepted the +King’s pension. There were among them some martyrs and some rebels, but +even out of those who were executed many would have submitted to the +King on any terms if he would have accepted their submission. + +Henry was not inclined to be lenient, and he had no difficulty in +satisfying his anger against the clergy, regular and secular, but that +was not enough; he wanted also to punish the gentlemen, whom he +suspected of great negligence and probable disloyalty, because they had +not prevented the rebellion at the first signs of disturbance. In this +he was partially baffled by the strong class spirit of the gentlemen. +His lieutenants were reluctant to gather evidence against men of their +own order. They were quite willing to sacrifice the commons, and they +could not save the monks, but as far as possible they protected the +gentlemen and even the higher of the secular clergy[802]. + +This reluctance could not be more than a temporary check to the King. If +he could not trust his agents, he would act himself. There is reason to +suppose that he did not intend to permit some of the northern gentlemen +who rode up to court at Christmas 1536 to return to the north again, but +if this were so the outcry of the commons in the north temporarily saved +their lords, and convinced the King that the time for the blow had not +come. The commons were inspired more by fear than by love. They were not +so much anxious lest their masters should be put to death as suspicious +that they were plotting with the King against the commons. As it turned +out the effect of the gentlemen’s return was greatly in the King’s +favour, as it encouraged those whom he summoned later to come up to him +without fear. In this way the Percys, Sir Robert Constable, and Lord +Darcy went unsuspiciously up to London. + +The proceedings of Norfolk and Sussex and the executions in Lincolnshire +shook the confidence of the gentlemen who remained in the north. They +could not help seeing that the King’s oblivion of the past extended only +to the appointment of Doncaster. He had forgotten his own promises, but +he was not inclined to forget the behaviour of the gentlemen, and he was +prepared to strain the law to the utmost in order to evade the +observation of the pardon. As this came to be realised in Yorkshire the +uneasiness which it produced was the cause of the last Yorkshire plot, +devised by that particularly unsuitable conspirator, Sir John Bulmer. + +About the middle of March the Bulmers’ peace was suddenly disturbed by +the delivery of a royal citation summoning both Sir John and Margaret +his wife to go up to London[803]. This part of the affair is difficult +to follow, but it is probable that information had been laid against +them by Gregory Conyers, who played so mysterious a part in Bigod’s +rising[804]. Norfolk must have sent his accusations to London, but the +letter containing them is lost. + +On receiving the summons the unfortunate couple realised that it was +probably their death warrant, but Sir John resolved to make sure. He +obtained licence from Norfolk to delay his journey until Easter, and +wrote privately to his son Ralph, who was still in London, to ask +whether he might safely obey the summons[805]. Ralph sent back a servant +named Lasingham with the message that Sir John “should look well to +himself, for, as far as he could perceive, all was falsehood that they +were dealt withal,”[806] a true but dangerous message. The gentlemen who +were summoned to London at that time were all wanted for trial, and the +Bulmers, conscious of their secret, were driven desperate by fear. + +Lady Bulmer was terrified lest she should be parted from her husband. +Their connection had been irregular, and she knew that there was no hope +of mercy if her conduct were called in question. Sir John Watts, the +parish priest of Easington, Yorks, said, “She is feared that she will be +departed from him for ever ... she peradventure will say, ‘Mr Bulmer for +my sake break a spear,’ and then he like a dow will [say], ‘Pretty Peg, +I will never forsake thee.’” His servants heard him say that “he had +liever be racked than part from his wife,”[807] and she for her part +declared that “she would liever be torn in pieces than go to London.” +Apart from other considerations, her baby son was not three months old, +and it would be equally hard to take or to leave him. In spite of the +priest’s assertion that Margaret encouraged her husband to plan a new +insurrection sooner than obey the royal summons, it seems that she +really used her influence to persuade him to escape by sea either to +Ireland or to Scotland[808]; but it was very difficult to induce a man +to leave his father’s home and his native land in those days. In almost +every case a suspected man preferred the probability of death to the +certainty of exile. Sir John would not fly, but neither would he go to +London. He preferred the desperate expedient of an attempt to raise a +new insurrection, saying, “As good be slain and die in the field as be +martyred as many other were above.”[809] The exact date when Ralph +Bulmer’s warning was received is not known, but it was about Palm Sunday +25 March 1537. In “Palm Sunday week” Margaret begged Sir John to fly, +but he resolved to stay and make a last effort to revive the Pilgrimage. + +On Thursday 29 March Sir John Bulmer’s chaplain, William Staynhus, set +out from Lastingham, where Sir John was living, on a tour among the +neighbouring parish priests “to inquire if the commons would rise again, +which they should know by men’s confessions.” Margaret suggested that he +should go to Bartholomew Cottam and Parson Franke, rector of Lofthouse, +who had been a captain in the first insurrection[810]. The chaplain was +also to visit John Watts the parson of Easington, the parson of +Hinderwell and, perhaps, Gregory Conyers. His message seems to have been +that an attempt should be made to seize Scarborough on Easter Day[811], +though if this is correct Bulmer was allowing very little time for +preparation as it was already Thursday and Easter was the following +Sunday. + +Other messengers were sent out besides the chaplain. Robert Hugill went +to the vicar of Kirkby in Cleveland, and Sir John Bulmer wrote to Lord +Lumley “to come and live with him till they might provide some way for +themselves.”[812] With the letter he sent a copy of a treasonable bill +which had been brought to him by his servant Blenkinsop[813]. Lord +Lumley’s son was in the Tower, with very little hope of obtaining mercy +from the King. Staynhus told Sir John that Lumley had said, “If he were +commanded to come up [to London], he would bring 10,000 at his tail.” +Sir John replied that it was impossible for both himself and Lord Lumley +together to raise enough men to save them from the King. Staynhus did +not press the point and merely said, “Nay, that is truth, but thus speak +they there.”[814] Shortly before Good Friday Sir John visited Lord +Lumley, who was living at Kilton near Guisborough; although Lumley had +intended to spend Whitsuntide at Kilton, after Sir John’s visit he left +the place hurriedly, “which things causeth a great murmur to be here in +the country.”[815] + +Bulmer was counting on the help of Lord Latimer, who had also been +summoned to London, and of Sir James Strangways, an old friend of his, +but it does not appear that he sent them any messages[816]. When he +received his son’s warning, however, he sent it on to Lord Darcy and +perhaps to Sir Robert Constable[817], but they probably had set out for +London before the message arrived; at any rate they paid no attention to +it. + +After despatching his messengers Sir John went to Rosedale, where he was +the lessee of a suppressed monastery[818]. The parish priest, Sir James +Otterburn, said to him on Good Friday, “Here is great destruction of +people since my Lord Norfolk came,” and hinted that the country was +ready to rise again[819]. Sir John received further encouragement from a +very unexpected quarter. Young Sir Ralph Evers had occasion to write to +him about the presentation to the living of Settrington, and in his +letter he sharply criticised both Norfolk and Cromwell. It is true that +Evers afterwards denied that he had written this part of the letter, and +asserted that it had been forged by his enemies, but Norfolk, who +investigated the affair, came to the conclusion that Evers was really +responsible for the words[820]. As he, next to the Earl of Cumberland, +had been the chief supporter of the King’s cause in the north, the fact +that even he was turning against the King’s measures is highly +significant, and must have been very encouraging to the Bulmers. This, +however, was the end of their success, for William Staynhus’ mission was +a failure. + +Staynhus went first to see John Watts, parson of Easington, and revealed +his master’s purpose to him in the presence of Bartholomew Cottam. +Watts, a garrulous but harmless old man, entered into a long discourse +about “the chronicles.” Probably, like Wilfrid Holme, he proved from +history to his own satisfaction that “treason can never prosper.” By his +account his arguments completely baffled Staynhus, who could not of +course complete the rhyme. “He gave no answer, but I answered that,” “he +answered no word”—are Watts’ report of Staynhus’ share in the +conversation. He managed to say that he was on his way to Parson Franke +at Lofthouse, and Watts determined to forestall him; “my purpose was +that he [Franke] being a marvellous witted man as we have in all our +country might have his answer surely.” + +Although Watts said service before he set out, he arrived at Lofthouse +before Staynhus, whose horse was weary. Watts repeated the chaplain’s +message to Franke, “he hearing me patiently,” and then suggested that he +had better go home again before Staynhus arrived, so that his errand +should not be suspected. The two priests set out together, but they met +Staynhus on the road. Staynhus said, “I have a message to show you from +my master and my lady.” Franke answered, “If ye have any message to say +to me, my brother parson shall hear and the bailiff and the constable +both, because your master was with my Lord Lumley within these two days, +saying he had both brewed and baked and slain his beefs, and suddenly my +Lord Lumley is gone.” As Franke was angry, Staynhus gave him a harmless +message: “My master and my lady commended them to you, desiring you to +show them whether they may make a proctor to excuse them. They are sent +for to London.”[821] Franke exclaimed, “Twisshe, straws! I can neither +thee neither thy master thanks for sending to me for any such +counsel.... If thy master be sent for to London let him go as he is +commanded. I can give him none other counsel.”[822] + +Watts, “hearing that cloaked matter contrary to his [Staynhus’] saying +before Bartholomew Cottam,” cried out, “‘Parson, these be not the +matters he said he would show to you, but if ye will hear I will +rehearse them before you.’” Franke had no desire to assist at so +dangerous a rehearsal, and replied hastily that he would hear nothing, +and that Watts was “frantic.” Watts, angry in his turn, said “he should +hear them whether he would or no,” but Franke went away and summoned the +bailiff to hear Staynhus’ message, and in the interval Watts cooled. +When the bailiff came Franke repeated the “cloaked” message, and asked +if there were any harm in it. The bailiff said none that he could +perceive, and went home. Watts and Staynhus followed him[823]. The +chaplain had a letter for Franke from Sir John Bulmer, but “finding the +parson did not favour his master,” he tore up the letter and threw the +pieces “into a water between the bailiffs house and the church.”[824] + +The two priests talked together as they went along. Staynhus asked Watts +what he thought would happen to the gentlemen whom the King had sent +for; Watts replied vigorously but discouragingly, “All false harlots +should be hanged by the neck.” He asked how Sir John hoped to resist the +summons, and Staynhus said that Lord Lumley had promised to succour him +to his power. Watts had no confidence in Lumley, and said he would +forsake Sir John. He also declared that he was sure the whole plot was +devised by that wicked woman Margaret, Sir John’s pretended wife. He +gave as his reason for this the story of one of Bulmer’s tenants at +Rosedale, who had heard a servant of Sir John’s say that his master had +said that he would rather be racked than parted from his wife. This was +merely a fourth-hand report, and Watts’ conviction was based on his +disapproval of Margaret’s past life rather than anything in her present +conduct. + +Staynhus said nothing to confirm Watts’ opinion that Margaret was at the +bottom of the plot. When Watts went so far as to say, “Sir William, take +heed of yourself, an ye are a wanton priest, beware ye fall not in love +with her, for if ye do ye will be made as wise as your master and both +will be hanged then,” he was moved to protest, “Of a truth I never wist +she loved me but of late,” i.e. I was never on friendly terms with her +until lately. + +Watts reported the conclusion of the conversation as follows: + + “Then at last of all I said, ‘Sir, ye are a priest, counsel your + master to take heed of himself, and also take ye heed, for surely ye + must be first hanged; for surely, Sir William, there is not one man in + all England will take your master’s part.’ Then said Sir William, + ‘Parson, I dare show my mind to you.’ + + ‘What else?’ said I, ‘I am sure enough, and that know ye well enough.’ + + ‘Thus it is, if my master mistrusted that the commons would not be up + at a wipe, surely he will flee to Ireland, and he trusts to get his + lands again within a year.’ + + Last word that ever I said to the said Sir William, I said: ‘Fare well + Sir William, for of a truth thou wilt be hanged by the neck.’” + +With this encouragement Staynhus departed. Watts passed the night at the +bailiffs house at Lofthouse, and next day went home to serve mass on +Easter Even. He confessed himself to be “marvellously ‘commeryd’ in the +mind how I should do in this matter which passed greatly my wit.... I +knowing all this, some men would think I had no cause to be very merry +at my heart.... I could not compass in my mind how I should disclose +this hideous and parlous case which passeth my rude understanding.”[825] + +If the worthy parson was troubled and frightened, the situation of Sir +John and his fellow conspirators was still more “hideous and parlous.” +The chaplain’s visit to Lofthouse was on Good Friday, 30 March, and by 8 +April they were all under arrest. The matter came to light through +Gregory Conyers, who must have laid information very soon after Staynhus +parted from Sir John Watts, as Norfolk had time to collect some +confessions, which probably included that of Watts, before he sent up to +London on 8 April Nicholas Rudston, Gregory Conyers, William Staynhus +and Margaret Bulmer[826]. Already the husband and wife were parted, for +Sir John was to be sent up later, and did not reach London until 21 +April[827]. Sir William Bulmer, on hearing of his brother’s arrest, went +to Norfolk to find out whether anything was laid to his charge, but +after examination Norfolk acquitted him and sent him up to London, not +as a prisoner but as a messenger[828]. + +As Staynhus, Rudston and Conyers were making their weary journey up to +London, Rudston asked the chaplain who were his accusers[829]. Staynhus +replied that they were the vicar of Easington and the rector of +Lofthouse. Rudston, sympathising with him, remarked that Franke had done +much worse than the acts with which he charged Staynhus, as he was a +head captain in Howdenshire, and caused Sir Thomas Percy to rise; “he +[Rudston] could say more if he list, ... he [Franke] was the unknownest +fellow in Yorkshire.”[830] Rudston’s accusation was correct; Franke is +mentioned as a captain in one of the earliest of Aske’s manifestos[831]. + +It is not certain where Lady Bulmer was imprisoned at first, but when +Sir John was sent up they were reunited in the Tower[832]. Staynhus was +confined in the Marshalsea, and found there another prisoner, John +Pickering the priest—not the friar—who was an old friend of his. They +were not harshly treated, and after they had heard each other’s +confession and dined, Staynhus told his friend why he was committed. His +story was that Sir John Bulmer had sent him to Parson Franke with the +letter of citation to London, because Bulmer wanted Franke’s advice +about it. Staynhus had called upon the priest of Easington on the way +about his private affairs, and the priest, when he heard that Sir John +was cited to London, said that he would lose his head. Franke had been +angry at Sir John’s message, and consequently Staynhus had never +delivered his master’s letter. He repeated to Pickering Rudston’s +accusation of Franke, and said that Gregory Conyers was a witness to the +words. Pickering thought the matter so important that he repeated it to +another prisoner and also to the keeper of the Marshalsea. Staynhus was +a vindictive man. He declared that if he were hanged he would cause +Parson Franke to hang Rudston or Rudston Parson Franke[833]. + +Thus by the beginning of May 1536 all the principal leaders of the +Pilgrimage were in the Tower, and the last hope that the appointment of +Doncaster would be observed had vanished. The humiliation of the north +was completed by the mock trial of the prisoners before a jury of their +own relations; no further resistance was possible when men had been +reduced to this infamy. In the south, however, the failure of the +insurrection caused keen disappointment in some quarters, while the +people had not the evidence of the King’s severity before their eyes to +restrain the expression of their grievances. It is true that the south +could not be induced to rise simultaneously and complete the work of the +Pilgrims. The southern sympathisers were less warlike and less +enthusiastic than the northerners. They hoped that the northern rebels +could do all that was required, and that they would enjoy the result +without sharing in the risk. + +After the second appointment of Doncaster, there was an outburst of +activity among the conservative priests which the government suppressed +as far as possible. On 23 December 1536, Richard Southwell announced +that he had arrested two priests who were circulating copies of the +rebels’ oath[834]. His brother Robert Southwell reported about Easter +1537 the execution of two priests who were taken in Sussex and were +perhaps the same men[835]. + +On 31 December 1536 another priest was charged with sowing abroad +slanderous bills against Cromwell in Cambridgeshire, where many such +bills passed about[836]. Richard Jackson, the parson of Witnesham, +Suffolk, was reported on the same day to have brought into the pulpit +the King’s Book of Articles, and said, “shaking the book in his hand, +‘Beware, my friends, of the English books ... he that was the first and +chief setter forward of them shall be the first that shall repent him’”; +besides other speeches in favour of the Pope’s supremacy[837]. Hugh +Payne, the curate of Hadley in Suffolk, taught that one paternoster said +by a priest’s commandment was worth 1000 said voluntarily. Archbishop +Cranmer enjoined penance upon him, but he continued to preach at Stoke +Nayland in Suffolk, and Cranmer reported to Cromwell on 28 January that +he was a “wolfish Pharisee.”[838] Payne was imprisoned in the +Marshalsea, where he “was like to die of sickness and the weight of his +irons.”[839] Robert Canell was accused of preaching a seditious sermon +at Windsor on Advent Sunday 1 December 1536[840], and John Woodward was +committed to Stafford gaol for the same offence at Christmas[841]. + +Early in January 1536–7 the rumours began to spread again. It was said +in London that the King had levied a tax on christenings in the +north[842]; another story told at Rochester was that the Earl of +Cumberland had refused to obey the King’s summons to court and was +holding a castle against him[843], while in Buckingham it was said that +the churches would be pulled down and their jewels sold. A barber’s boy +of Aylesbury was examined about this tale; he said he heard it from his +dame, and she in her turn had heard it “at the common bakehouse, where +they were to set their bread.”[844] The same rumour was discussed in the +ale-houses of Shrewsbury early in March[845]. It had probably spread +from Wales, where there had never been more rioting than there was that +spring[846]. The Bishop of St Asaph banished one priest from his diocese +“for not rasing the Bishop of Rome’s name and for other crimes.”[847] +Another priest was accused of repeating a rumour that the King would +pull down parish churches. He had also said “that if the men of Holy +Church would rise with one assent that they would not give a point for +the King’s Grace,” and other words against the King. Although he denied +the words the Council of Wales were satisfied of his guilt by the +evidence[848]. The Abbot of Wigmore was accused of having in his service +a suspected northern rebel[849]. + +There was very little heresy in Wales, “for their language does not +agree to the advancement thereof,” but on 15 January 1536–7 the Bishop +of Coventry sent up to London articles against a heretic who had been +preaching in the diocese of St David during November 1536. One effect of +his doctrine was that the Prior of Woodhouse in Cleobury Mortimer +(Cleeland) “without authority despatched the goods of his monastery and +changed his vesture in this ruffling time.”[850] + +The only article of the second appointment of Doncaster which the King +was inclined to observe was the promise that he would summon a council +of divines to show their learning on religious questions. They were not, +of course, permitted to discuss the royal supremacy or the other most +important points which the rebels wished to lay before them, but they +were entrusted with the revision of the Ten Articles. By 18 February +1536–7 “most part of the bishops have come [to London], but no one knows +what is to be done.”[851] The tendency of the assembly was on the whole +reactionary. The four sacraments which had been omitted from the Ten +Articles were “found again,”[852] and it was rumoured, incorrectly, that +“Our Lady is now found again, thanked be God, that was lost +before.”[853] + +Another sign of conservatism was the renewed prosecution of heretics +which occurred in the early part of 1537[854]. The northern rebels had a +saying, “If you call us traitors we will call you heretics.” The reverse +of this was literally true in the heresy cases, for the accused always +retorted that his accuser had used treasonable words during the +rebellion; all the preacher’s friends swore to the treason, and all the +accuser’s friends to the heresy, and the whole countryside was filled +with quarrelling and counter-accusations. + +An instance of this occurred in the neighbourhood of Ipswich. John Bale, +formerly Prior of the White Friars there, gave up his office on account +of his changed opinions, and became vicar of Thorndon. He was constantly +in trouble for his preaching, and in return accused his parishioners of +sympathy with the Lincolnshire rebels[855]. While he was accused of +heresy, the Prior of Butley, who was also Suffragan of Ipswich, was +accused of treason, as he was inconveniently reluctant to surrender his +house[856]. + +Bishop Latimer’s diocese of Worcester was torn by dissensions, some of +the clergy supporting their bishop, others calling him a false harlot +and a “horesone” heretic[857]. John Kene parson of Christchurch, +Bristol, despised the new preachers and condemned their doctrines. Most +of his parishioners were offended because he “prayed not for the King +four Sundays together in his chief wars against the rebellious and +traitors,” but a few were on his side, and William Glaskeryon said at +the time of the rising, “We may bless the time that we were born; they +rise to strengthen our Faith.” Another man, when he heard the rebels had +fallen, hoped that they would rise again, and said that he would join +them himself. About Candlemas seditious bills appeared on the steps of +Christchurch, Bristol, and during Lent the warden of the Grey Friars, +who was of the old way of thinking, and the Prior of the Friars +Preachers, who was of the new, preached one against the other[858]. + +The hopes of the reactionaries were dashed by a proclamation issued by +the King about the middle of Lent which permitted the eating of white +meats, milk, eggs, etc., during the fast[859]. This was a new source of +strife. A mariner of Brighton was accused of saying that “he could not +judge how the King should be Pope and have power to license people to +eat butter, cheese and milk in Lent”; but the justices decided that the +accusation was malicious and false[860]. + +The diocese of Salisbury was in much the same condition as that of +Worcester. Bishop Shaxton was a reformer, but his people were +conservative, and when the King’s dispensation was posted up in the city +of Salisbury it was immediately torn down. The Bishop’s chaplain, John +Madowell, urged the mayor to investigate the matter, and was promptly +thrown into prison[861]. He complained to Cromwell both on his own +behalf and on that of another man, who had posted a bill against the +seditious preaching of a certain friar and had been imprisoned for +it[862]. On Cromwell’s remonstrance the prisoners were reluctantly set +at liberty under surety, but the mayor defended his conduct on the +grounds that Madowell was a Scot and had used himself uncharitably and +slanderously against the corporation[863]. + +There was a similar breach in Kent between the Archbishop and the lower +clergy[864]. At the time of the insurrection “one Sir Davy, a priest” +quarrelled with a man called John Drewry in a tavern. The priest said +that the King was “a tyrant more cruel than Nero; for Nero destroyed but +a part of Rome but this tyrant destroyeth his whole realm.” Drewry +called him a traitor, whereupon the priest drew his dagger and chased +Drewry into the kitchen, “where my host and hostess were, he grinding of +malt and she dressing her child by the fire.” Davy wounded Drewry and +fled, thinking he had killed him. The fugitive was protected by the +commissary of Maidstone and by the curate of Headcorn[865]. In April +certain of the curate’s parishioners brought charges against him, but +the rest of the parish were so much enraged that they said “there would +be no peace till five or six of these new fellows were killed,” and kept +the accusers in terror of their lives[866]. + +The complete failure of the insurrection was generally known in the +south by Easter. The executions in the north and in Lincolnshire, the +King’s Lenten proclamation, and the absence of any preparations for a +parliament, showed that there was no further hope. The result of this +was two-fold, for while the timid ceased to murmur against the +government, the bolder spirits dreamed of a last effort which might +snatch a victory when all seemed lost. There were certain districts +where the disaffection was so strong that definite ideas of resistance +were entertained. It often happened that these were the places where +there was also a good deal of heresy. Sedition and heresy in fact went +hand in hand, for where one party was strong, the other was provoked +into violence. + +Particular efforts were made to force the acceptance of the King’s +reforms upon the two universities. Not much is known about the attitude +of Cambridge during this period, except that the vicar of All Hallows, +who was a chaplain of the Bishop of Ely, caused much offence by the +manner in which he ministered the Sacrament, and the vicar of Caxton was +accused of giving his parishioners ale instead of wine at the mass on +Easter day[867]. + +There is more information about Oxford, where several royal preachers +spoke against the primacy of Rome and in favour of justification, +without obtaining much acceptance[868]. A certain John Parkyns laid +information against the Abbots of Oseney and Eynsham and against Serls, +vicar of St Peter’s in the East, Oxford, but the man seems to have been +a lunatic, as even Cromwell admitted, for he endorsed one of Parkyns’ +letters “a fool of Oxford or thereabouts.”[869] Although Parkyns’ tales +cannot be credited, there are other signs that there was disaffection +both in the country and in the university. The people of Thame insisted +upon celebrating the day of St Thomas à Becket [29 December 1536]. +Thomas Strebilhill said to the vicar, “Master Doctor, ye have kept a +solemn feast this day, where had ye such authority?” The vicar replied +that the people would have it so. Strebilhill persisted that within a +mile and a half there were men at work, whereupon another man said, that +“he wished their horses’ necks had been to-braste and their carts +fired.” Strebilhill remonstrated, “I think thou art one of the northern +sect; thou wouldst rule the King’s Highness and not be ruled.” In May +there was a rumour at Thame that the King would take away the church +jewels[870]. An Oxford scholar was heard to say on 19 January 1536–7 +that “if the northern men should continue rebellious his Grace would be +in great danger of his life or avoid his realm before the end of +March.”[871] + +About the beginning of February the Abbot of Whalley sent a letter to +“his scholar at Oxford” and to the Abbot of Hailes, of whom he said in +his message: “I would be glad to see him once more ere I departed out of +this world, seeing I brought him up here of a child.” The proctor of +Blackburn sent a letter to the scholar by the same messenger, William +Rede, a baker of Oxford. On his journey Rede spent the night at his +usual halting-place, the house of Richard Oldfelden, a schoolmaster at +Knutsford[872]. In order to be a successful schoolmaster it was +necessary to be a conservative in religion; all parents like to think +that their children are being taught what they themselves learnt when +they were young. The failure of Gervase Tyndale, the reformer, in the +profession has already been recorded[873]. Robert Richardin, another +reformer and would-be schoolmaster, was driven out of Lincolnshire by +the insurrection[874]. Oldfelden, however, was a conservative and must +have prospered, as he had a son Philip at Oriel College, Oxford, and was +thinking of sending another son there, if he could get him a place as a +butler[875]. Oldfelden asked Rede to carry a letter to Philip, and +especially charged him not to show it to any man, and to deliver it into +Philip’s own hands[876]. In this letter, among various items of family +interest, Oldfelden told his son that he would send him “a hundred +verses and more made by Roger Vernon in your brother John’s name, +concerning the insurrection in the north. Cave dicas resurrection +[beware lest thou say resurrection].” Philip might show these verses and +others which his father was sending to his master. At the end of the +letter Oldfelden was seized with caution and added that he would not +send the verses, lest the poor man who carried the letter should show +them to anyone or be searched[877]. This omission is a pity; it would +have been interesting to see the verses, which might have been preserved +with the letter, and Oldfelden’s danger could not have been increased, +as they had been mentioned. The schoolmaster’s fears were justified; +Rede spent the next night in the constable’s house at Wotton. He told +the constable that he was ill and would be glad to go back to Lancashire +if he could find anyone to deliver his Oxford letters. The constable +took the letters, opened and read them, and laid them before a +magistrate at Kenilworth Castle. He promptly imprisoned Rede who was +examined on 10 February 1536–7[878]. As he had been solemnly warned not +to part with the letters, he deserved his misfortune. + +Thomas Reynton, another north country man at Oxford, corresponded with +his friends at Durham in no loyal terms. He told them that the most part +of the King’s levies were but boys, and that the people of Oxfordshire +were so weary of being summoned to musters and then countermanded “that +they say ere they rise again the King shall as soon hang them up at +their own doors.”[879] The King’s levies, and particularly the pressing +of horses, caused complaints in several places[880]. + +At Oxford there was opposition to the new opinions, but in the more +remote parts of England there was an obstinate adherence to the old +customs. In September 1536 John Tregonwell reported to Cromwell that the +people of Cornwall were as quiet and true to the King as any in the +realm, and rejoiced greatly “that the King has allowed the festum loci +of every church to be kept holy, at Cromwell’s intercession.”[881] +Either a special indulgence had been granted to Cornwall for a limited +time, or Tregonwell had misunderstood Cromwell’s injunctions, as not all +the church holy days were permitted. One of those which were prohibited +was the day of St Keverne [St Kevin’s day, 3 June], who was the patron +saint of a large and unruly parish in Cornwall, the first to rise in the +insurrection of 1497[882]. + +It is probable that the discontent which the suppression of the local +feast caused was encouraged by a copy of the Pilgrims’ oath and articles +which some Cornish soldiers had obtained at King’s Lynn, when Norfolk +disbanded his troops[883]. Early in April 1537 two fishermen of St +Keverne’s, named Carpyssacke and Treglosacke, when selling their fish at +Hamell beside Southampton, met two men who were evidently agents of the +rebellious party. They asked the Cornish men why they had not risen with +the north, and the fishermen were so much moved by their words that they +“swore upon a book to help them,” and began their preparations by buying +200 jerkins. + +When the fishermen went home they directed a local painter to make a +banner for the parish of St Keverne, “in the which banner they would +have first the picture of Christ with his wounds abroad and a banner in +his hand, Our Lady on the one side holding her breast in her hand, St +John à Baptist on the other side, the King’s Grace and the Queen +kneeling, and all the commonalty kneeling, with scripture above their +heads, making their petition to the picture of Christ that it would +please the King’s Grace that they might have their holidays.” +Carpyssacke intended to display this banner on Pardon Monday, and he +expected that the people would follow it[884]. In consequence prophecies +of the King’s death and rumours of musters arose in the neighbouring +county of Devonshire[885]. The plot, however, was a very ingenuous one, +and was quickly discovered. The painter was alarmed at so dangerous a +commission, and reported the matter to a local magistrate, who wrote on +22 April to Cromwell for orders, with assurances that the whole county +was quiet and well-disposed, and that Carpyssacke was the only traitor; +nevertheless he begged that the King would permit the people to “hold +the day of the head saint of their church.”[886] He was commanded to +arrest the two fishermen and send them to London, but they had gone back +to Southampton and Treglosacke seems to have escaped altogether[887]. +Carpyssacke was eventually taken and imprisoned in Cornwall. He was not +sent up to London, and there must have been some powerful influence at +work in his favour, for the justices of assize said that they had no +authority to inquire for high treason and refused to try him[888]; he is +last heard of on 28 August 1537, still uncondemned[889]. In July it was +reported that the people of Exeter were “half afraid of a privy +insurrection of Cornishmen.”[890] + +These mutterings and plots are all connected with the religious +discontent, but the failure of the rebellion was also a severe +disappointment to the commons who had hoped for social reforms, and the +methods in which they vented their baffled feelings were more dangerous +than the feeble efforts of the religious. + +In Somerset, although the suppression of the monastery of Clyffe[891] +caused much lamentation[892], social grievances were uppermost. The +levying of the subsidy had been stopped in several counties during the +insurrection. In April 1537 it began again, and the commissioners +inquired “whether we shall stand to the old taxation or attempt higher +sums.”[893] As the King was badly in need of money after the expenses of +the insurrection, they were probably ordered to get as much as they +could, but the exaction which provoked the rising was not the subsidy. +The outbreak was caused by a “certain commission ... to take up corn,” +apparently an exercise of the hated royal right of purveyance, due to +the King’s poverty. The commons tried to rise against the commissioners, +but were repressed by “young Mr Paulet and other great men.” Sixty +rebels were imprisoned, of whom fourteen were executed for treason, one +being a woman. The rest were pardoned[894]. + +It is curious that there is no reference to this attempt among the +“Letters and Papers of Henry VIII” until 13 May, after the prisoners had +been executed at Taunton. There was a rumour in the county that the King +was displeased with Thomas Horner for “his taking the men imprisoned at +Nonye”[895] and causing them to be executed at Taunton. It was said that +Horner’s life had been saved only by the intercession of Sir John St Low +and that the King said that “he had liever have given Sir John 1000 +marks a year.”[896] Sir John St Low wrote to Cromwell to request that +the rumour might be contradicted and its authors punished, as it was +greatly to Horner’s detriment[897]. It is unlikely that Henry took any +active measures to suppress the story, as he encouraged the popular view +of his character, upon which it was based, that he was a good-natured +but careless man, who left too much to his agents, but was shocked and +grieved when his attention was called to their severity. + +It is interesting to notice the previous history of Somerset. The +peasants of the shire had risen in the great revolt of 1381. In the +fifteenth century lollardy was widely diffused there. Without entering +into the vexed question as to how long lollardy survived as a +creed[898], it may be remarked that the lollards of 1447 were nearer in +point of time to the men of 1537 than John Wesley is to our own time, +and it is possible that their influence may have lasted as his has done. + +It is still more interesting to trace the history of revolt in Norfolk +and Suffolk. In 1381, under the vigorous rule of Bishop Spencer, these +counties were considered the most orthodox in England[899]. Nevertheless +the peasants’ revolt there in that year was exceedingly violent and +unusually well organised. Its objects were purely social, and many +parish priests and chaplains were with the insurgents, still the +monasteries were savagely attacked, not on religious grounds, but +because their tenants felt themselves oppressed[900]. The hatred of the +monks was so strong that it is surprising that their fall 150 years +later should have excited any regret, but the changed feeling of the +people is accounted for by the changed social conditions. The +monasteries were above everything conservative. In 1381, after the great +catastrophe of the Black Death, they insisted on exacting the old dues, +which had become oppressive, and in paying the old wages, which were +inadequate. The peasants in consequence wanted to force their lords to +move with the times. In Henry VIII’s reign, on the contrary, it was the +lords who were moving faster than the peasants liked. The monasteries +became popular because they still practised the old hospitality, and to +some extent cultivated the land in the old way. + +After the death of fighting Bishop Spencer, lollardy spread rapidly +through East Anglia; the large lollard communities there underwent +vigorous persecution in 1428[901]. Social discontent, more than +religious conservatism, caused the commons of this region to meditate a +rising in 1537, and the rebels of 1549 definitely professed themselves +to be protestants[902]. Yet the first suggestion of a revolt was +connected with the suppression of Buckenham Priory. As three men were +riding home from Stone Fair on 1 August 1536 [Lammas Day], one of them, +Hugh Wilkinson, said to the other two: “Let us go home, for now are the +visitors in putting down of our house. And if ye will do after me, I +have here an angel noble in my purse that never did me good, and that +shall ye have between you, if ye will come in the evening and kill them +in their beds, for I know the gates of every door, so that I shall let +you into every chamber. And when ye have done ye may soon be out of the +way for the wood is at hand. And when they be in their beds ye shall be +sure that they have no weapon at hand to defend themselves withal. And +if I had no more to lose than one of you hath, it should be the first +deed I should do.” But the two others refused the rather inadequate +bribe[903]. + +Later in the year 1536 there were disturbances in Norfolk which were +suppressed by the Duke of Norfolk[904]. When the Lincolnshire rebellion +broke out there was much anxiety lest it should spread to Norfolk, and +this was prevented only by prompt and severe measures[905]. + +In November copies of the Yorkshire oath and manifesto appeared at +King’s Lynn and Walsingham[906] and murmurs were heard of an intended +rising[907]. The great shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham was naturally a +centre for all the rumours of the country. One of the priests, Henry +Manser, was accused of having discussed the rebellion with some +Lincolnshire pilgrims to the shrine on 7 December 1536; in the course of +the conversation they had regretted that Norfolk and Suffolk had not +risen at the same time as Lincolnshire, for then the rebels “would have +gone through the kingdom.” The way in which the conversation was +revealed is rather suspicious. In June 1537 the priest caused “a sore +and a diseased” beggar to be turned out of Our Lady’s Chapel and set in +the stocks. The beggar in revenge accused the priest of the treasonable +conversation which he asserted that he had overheard[908]. + +Information was laid on 15 February against John Hogon, a fiddler, who +went about Norfolk and the neighbouring counties singing seditious +songs[909]. During Lent Harry Jervyse of Fincham said that he wished the +Yorkshire men had prospered, for then “the holydays that were put down +should be restored again,” and after Easter he rebuked some of his +friends, saying that if they had been ruled by him he would have cried +“Fire!” at mass time at the house of John Fincham, the principal +gentleman; when he ran out they might have taken him, and if he would +not be ruled by them “they would make a cart way betwixt his head and +his shoulder.” Jervyse also urged his friends to ring the bells in every +town to raise the commons[910]. + +The suppression of the monasteries and the levying of the subsidy were +suspended in Norfolk during the rebellion, but on 6 January 1536–7 the +Duke of Norfolk recommended that the commissioners should begin their +work again[911]. One of the collectors went to John Cokke, a worsted +weaver of Norwich, for his payment during Lent. Cokke was accused of +saying, in reply to the collector’s demand: “I cannot pay for I can sell +no worsted, wherefore I see no remedy without poor men do rise.” Cokke +denied having said the words, unless he was drunk at the time[912]. + +After Easter a plot for a rising began to be discussed at Walsingham +Priory. The chief mover was Ralph Rogerson, a singing man of the Priory. +Nicholas Myleham the sub-prior was also accused of taking part in the +conspiracy, but there was little evidence against him[913]. About the +middle of April Rogerson discussed the state of the nation with his +friend George Guisborough. Guisborough said that “he thought it very +evil done for the suppressing of so many religious houses, where God was +well served and many other good deeds of charity done.” Rogerson agreed +and said that the living of poor men went away with the abbeys, for now +the gentlemen had all the farms and cattle of the country in their +hands. They decided that “some men must step to and resist them,” and +they resolved that they would raise a company by firing some beacon and +go to the King to complain. They appointed St Helen’s Day, 21 May, as +the date on which to proclaim their intentions; the mustering place was +to be Shepcotes Heath, and meanwhile they sounded their friends on the +subject[914]. + +It is difficult to judge of their success, as Guisborough was honourably +reluctant to accuse others, and Rogerson’s confession has not been +preserved, but the conspirators held several meetings. On one occasion +they made use of the opportunity offered “at a game of shooting of the +flyte and standard” at Benham, where they held a consultation[915]. +Their fully developed plan was to assemble the people in the night, fire +the beacons on the coast, and cause the head constables and under +constables of the hundreds to summon the musters. Then the rebels would +kill and plunder all who resisted them, seize Brandon Ferry and Brandon +Bridge in order to cut off communications with London, and march to help +the northern men. + +Unfortunately for themselves, they admitted into their secret John +Galant, a servant of Sir John Heydon. In spite of their threats that +they would kill anyone who betrayed them, this man informed his master +of the plot on 26 April. Sir John immediately sent the news to London +and arrested George Guisborough and his son William, who was in the +plot[916]. The rest of the conspirators were taken on 30 April[917], and +orders were sent down on 8 May that the offenders were to be executed +without sparing[918]. + +The social discontent was strong in Suffolk, although it did not +culminate in an organised conspiracy. On May day there was a May game at +some place in Suffolk, “which play was of a king how he should rule his +realm, in which one played Husbandry and said many things against +gentlemen more than was in the book of the play.”[919] After the games +Husbandry prudently disappeared and could not be found[920]. + +On 11 May Richard Bushop of Bungay had a long conversation with Robert +Seyman in Tyndale Wood, Suffolk. Bushop asked, “What tidings hear you? +Have you any musters about you?” Seyman replied no, and asked if there +were any at Bungay. Bushop complained that it was a hard world for poor +men, and when Seyman agreed, he went on: “Methinketh ye seem to be an +honest man, such a one as a man may trust to open his mind unto. We are +used under such fashion now a days as it hath not been seen, for if +three or four of us be communing together the constables will examine +what communication [we have] and stock us if we will not tell them: good +fellows would not be so used long if one would be true to another. And +as I have heard, now lately at Walsingham the people had risen if one +person had not been; and as I hear some of them now be in Norwich +Castle, and other be sent to London.... If two men have communication +together, a man may go back on his word as long as no third man is +there; three may keep counsel if two be away.”[921] Bushop offered to +show Seyman a prophecy “which one man had watched in the night to copy.” +In it the King was called a mole who should be put down this year or +never[922]; also “There should land at Walborne Hope the proudest prince +in all Christendom, and so shall come to Mousehold Heath, and there +should meet with two other kings and shall fight and shall be put down, +and the white lion should obtain.” Bushop had been told that the Earl of +Derby had rebelled, and that the Duke of Norfolk was so beset in the +north that he could not escape[923]. The man must have been drunk to run +on like this to a stranger. He paid a heavy price for his folly. Seyman +informed against him, and Bushop was forced, probably by torture, to +confess his words, and was then executed. It seems that Seyman shared +his fate[924]. It is rather surprising that Cromwell was able to find +such a number of informers, considering that they were occasionally +imprisoned and hanged with the guilty person. + +The disaffection in East Anglia was due to the subsidy, the bad state of +the cloth trade, the government espionage, and particularly to the +aggressions of the gentlemen. In spite of its connection with Walsingham +Priory the religious motive was not strong. The conspirators objected to +the suppression of the monasteries partly because their almsgiving +ceased, but chiefly because the confiscated lands went to increase the +wealth and influence of their chief enemies, the country gentlemen. The +prisoners at Norwich were heard to say that “if any great man had two +dishes on his table, they would have had the one if they had gone +forward with their business.”[925] + +The evidence from Aylesham is still more clear. This town was quite a +centre of heresy, but it was also a centre of sedition. About the +beginning of May seven persons were accused of heretical speeches. One +case was very singular. Thomas Rooper “set up in the town of Aylesham a +cross of wood whereon was made the image of the Pope with his three +crowns, gilded, and a cardinal, which was gilded by John Swan of +Aylesham and Simon Cressy the carver and setter up thereof.” It is +difficult to deduce the religious belief of the designer of this curious +symbol. Two persons said that they knew a hundred traitors in Aylesham, +which is perhaps partly explained by the conduct of four other men who +“reported that there was an Act of Parliament made that if their church +lands were not sold before May Day the King would have it; whereupon +they sold it to defeat the King thereof, and have converted the money +coming of the sale thereof to their own use.” They tried to get hold of +the church jewels also, but the churchwardens refused to give them up, +saying “if the King wished to have it he was most worthy.” Again the +thieves’ religious convictions cannot be deduced from their action; the +devout stole church property to prevent the sacrilege of its falling +into the King’s hands, the reformers did the same to prevent +idolatry[926]. + +There can be no doubt about the opinions of Elizabeth Wood of Aylesham, +who on 12 May said to John Dix, tailor, as she was leaning upon his shop +window, “It is pity that these Walsingham men were discovered, for we +shall have never good world till we fall together by the ears: + + And with clubs and clouted shoon + Shall the deed be done, + For we had never good world + Since this King reigned. + It is pity that he ’filed + Any clouts more than one.”[927] + +She was singing or saying an old rhyme which played its part in the +later Norfolk rising[928]. + +Twenty-five men were imprisoned at Norwich for the Walsingham plot[929]. +According to the report of some prisoners, Rogerson and George +Guisborough thought of accusing several others who had known their +plans, especially “a rich gentleman” who had promised them six or seven +score sheep, and had said they should not lack sheep as long as he had +any. They had even written out their accusation, when William +Guisborough, George’s son, remonstrated with them, saying, “Father, +there is no remedy but death with us, and for us to put any more in +danger, it were pity.” His gentleness touched the others and they tore +up the paper. Several of the prisoners gave evidence that they had seen +pieces of paper “as small as pence or two pence” flying about; one had +seen a fragment “about the breadth of a groat ... stamped in the water +by James Biggis, his fellow that he was coupled unto.”[930] Five +prisoners were prepared to give the names of those whom they had heard +Rogerson mention as his fellow-conspirators, but others whom they named +as witnesses declared that they had never heard Rogerson speak in the +prison. They were in a different house from him, and saw the other +prisoners only occasionally from a distance in the chapel. All the +accused denied absolutely that they knew anything about the plot[931]. + +The conspirators were tried on Friday 25 May 1537. Twelve were condemned +to execution, three to perpetual imprisonment, two were remanded to +prison without judgment, and the other eight were pardoned. Rogerson and +four others were executed at Norwich next day. On the scaffold a most +unusual incident occurred; Rogerson attempted to address to the crowd a +justification of his conduct. He was cut short by the executioner[932]. +This gives one reason why the last words of the condemned at this period +are nearly always said to have been a confession of the crime, an +acknowledgment of the impartiality of their trial, and a humble apology. +If the criminal attempted to say anything inconvenient he was promptly +silenced for ever. Two more of the prisoners were executed at Yarmouth +on Monday 28 May, George Guisborough and Nicholas Mileham suffered at +Walsingham on 30 May, and William Guisborough and another at Lynn on +Friday 1 June. The twelfth man seems to have been spared[933]. + +After the executions at Norwich two men of Houghton juxta Harpley were +discussing the news. One of them, Thomas Westwood, had been sent to ask +the other, Thomas Wright a carpenter, to come and work for his master. +Westwood remarked that the wife of one of the traitors fell down in a +swoon when her husband was executed, and lay so for an hour, but her +husband had as he deserved. Wright was accused of answering, “They that +did for the commonwealth were hanged up.”[934] + +The state of England cannot be considered healthy or happy when such an +unscrupulous watch was exercised over every careless word and every +expression of ordinary humanity, but it is a good sign that this spying +was deeply resented by the people themselves. The monks of Lenton Abbey, +Notts, talking together at Easter, said: “It is a marvellous world, for +the King will hang a man for a word speaking nowadays,” to which another +replied, “Yea, but the King of Heaven will not do so, and He is King of +all kings; but he that hangs a man in this world for a word speaking, he +shall be hanged in another world his self.”[935] These sentiments were +very natural, but they provoke the reflection that it was the Church +which had taught the King that a man otherwise blameless might be put to +death “for a word speaking” or for holding heretical opinions. For +centuries Church and State had played into one another’s hands. So long +as the clergy felt certain that the heretics whom they condemned and +“relaxed to the secular arm” would be burnt, they were ready to teach +that obedience to the King was a duty second only to obedience to the +Church, and they blessed with their approval and imitation the barbarous +penalties for treason. Now that the age-long alliance was broken, they +were shocked and indignant to find themselves suffering the fate that +they had complacently inflicted on others. + +NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX + +Note A. + + Pacem emit armorum precio + O quam letus dolor in tristi gaudio + Grex respirat pastore mortuo + Plangens plaudit mater in filio + Quia vivit victor sub gladio. + +Then follow rubrics with the beginnings of versicles:— + + _Versus_—Justus igitur ... + _Collecta_—Deus per cujus ... + _Capitulum_(?)—gloriosus pontifex ... + +Note B. It is interesting to observe that Anne Askew, the protestant +martyr of 1545, was the daughter of Sir William Askew, one of the +commissioners who helped to check the Lincolnshire rebellion. She became +the wife of Thomas Kyme of Kelsey, whom she was forced to marry although +he was devoted to the old religion[936]. He must have belonged to the +same family as Guy Kyme, which would make his relations with his wife +still more difficult. + +Note C. One of Sir John Bulmer’s papers, seized after his arrest, was a +letter from his sister-in-law Anne, the wife of Sir Ralph Bulmer[937]. +The writer referred to a message which she had sent to Sir John by his +servant Blenkinsop. She mentioned her “brothers” Richard Bowes and Harry +Wycliff, but as she was one of the two daughters and co-heirs of Roger +Aske of Aske, she had no brothers by blood[938]. Richard Bowes was her +brother-in-law, the husband of her sister Elizabeth. Harry Wycliff may +have been her step-brother or even her foster-brother. He was accused on +30 March 1537 of inciting the commons to rescue Anthony Peacock, the +Richmondshire rebel[939]. The letter from Anne Bulmer is dated Easter +day, but without the year. She says that she has received letters from +Sir John on Good Friday, and that she and her two “brothers” have +arranged that her husband Sir Ralph shall meet Sir John at Northallerton +on Easter Tuesday in order to arrange some business over which, +apparently, Sir John and Sir Ralph had quarrelled. The nature of the +business is not stated. + +This may be the treasonable letter that Blenkinsop brought, but it does +not bear any outward trace of treason. In fact, if its date was Easter +1537, it is rather evidence for than against Sir John, as it indicates +that, so far from plotting a rising, he was busy with private affairs. +But the government lawyers were quite unscrupulous in their use of +documents, as for instance in the case of the Abbot of Sawley’s +supplication. They may have forced a treasonable interpretation upon the +innocent letter, or it is possible that the business alluded to may not +have been as harmless as it appears. In the absence of a date it is +impossible to discover the true importance of the letter. It may have +been written at some other Easter years before. + +Note D. Froude made up his mind that the Marquis of Exeter must have +encouraged the Cornish rising, and in consequence of this preconceived +opinion he jumbled together several documents without any regard for +their dates. First he described the ordering of the banner by the +Cornish fishermen, but assigned the intended display of it to the year +1538. In a note he admitted that this date was inconsistent with the +fact that “the queen” was to be painted on the banner, as Henry in 1538 +was a widower, but Froude explained this by saying that the banner was +ordered in the summer of 1537, but the painter delayed his information +until 1538; in order to fit in with his theory the insurgents must have +ordered their banner a year before they meant to use it. + +The passage continues, “At length particular information was given in, +which connected itself with the affair at St Keverne. It was stated +distinctly that two Cornish gentlemen named Kendall and Quyntrell had +for some time past been secretly employed in engaging men who were to be +ready to rise at an hour’s warning.” The implication is that the +machinations of the two gentlemen were discovered in 1538, in +consequence of the exposure of the Cornish plot; yet the evidence quoted +in a foot-note sufficiently contradicts this, for it was a report +addressed to Cromwell that Kendall and Quyntrell had told many people +that “Henry Marquis of Exeter ... would be king, if the King’s Highness +proceeded to marry the Lady Anne Boleyn, or else it should cost a +thousand men’s lives.” This discrepancy passed unnoticed by Froude[940]. + +The conspiracy of Kendall and Quyntrell, in fact, took place and was +discovered in 1531, when Exeter was banished from court for some time on +account of its discovery[941]. It had nothing to do with the present +agitation in Cornwall, and there is not the smallest reason to connect +the Marquis of Exeter with this later movement. + +Note E. This was a favourite proverb of the King’s: “‘Well then,’ quoth +the King, ‘Let me alone, and keep this gear secret between yourself and +me, and let no man be privy thereof: for if I hear any more of it, then +I know by whom it came to knowledge. Three may,’ quoth he, ‘keep +counsel, if two be away; and if I thought that my cap knew my counsel I +would cast it into the fire and burn it.’”[942] + + + + + CHAPTER XX + THE END OF THE PILGRIMAGE + + +It is not likely that any tidings of the new attempts at insurrection +reached the prisoners in the Tower. They were cut off from the world and +forgotten; the conspirators who still maintained their cause did not +even plan a rescue. + +The champions of the old faith lay at the mercy of the reformers, but +even this was not perhaps the most deadly feature of the prisoners’ +position. Their plight was rendered still worse by the fact that they +were the upholders of the common law, but they had fallen into the hands +of the civilians. There was a new influence at work in the law courts, +inimical to the ancient free customs of England:— + + “In 1535, the year in which More was done to death, the Year Books + come to an end: in other words, the great stream of law reports that + has been flowing for near two centuries and a half, ever since the + days of Edward I, becomes discontinuous and then runs dry. The exact + significance of this ominous event has never yet been duly explored, + but ominous it surely is. Some words that once fell from Edmund Burke + occur to us: ‘To put an end to reports is to put an end to the law of + England.’”[943] + +One sign of this new influence was very significant, namely, the +interrogation of the prisoner before trial. This practice, which was +closely connected with the use of torture, was contrary to the usages of +English common law, but it was so freely employed in Henry VIII’s reign +that “in criminal causes that were of any political importance an +examination by two or three doctors of the civil law threatened to +become a normal part of our procedure.”[944] Every one of the prisoners +after the Pilgrimage of Grace was repeatedly interrogated and their +answers were used as the chief evidence against themselves and each +other. + +Norfolk expected the last batch of prisoners from the north to arrive in +London on 21 April 1537. Sir John Bulmer and Margaret were reunited in +the Tower, never to be “departed” again, except for a few hours[945]. + +The King was not satisfied with such a small number of prospective +executions, and several of the gentlemen had narrow escapes. It was +characteristic of the royal gratitude that two of the three noblemen who +had served him most faithfully in the north were among those in danger. +The Earl of Cumberland paid no penalty for his loyalty, but the Earl of +Northumberland, who had refused the rebels’ oath at the risk of his +life, was threatened with a prosecution for treason. He had made the +King his heir, but he was “an unconscionable time a-dying.” Henry wanted +to settle the north, and entertained the idea of sweeping away all the +three Percy brothers at once. The Earl was charged with the surrender of +Wressell Castle to Aske, although this event was undoubtedly covered by +the pardon[946]. The accusation was made about the end of April, and on +29 April the unfortunate man wrote to declare his unswerving +loyalty[947]. It was probably not so much his innocence as the state of +his health which saved him from a traitor’s death. On 3 June he sent +word that although he had made the King his heir on condition that +certain articles of his devising were performed, he now withdrew all +conditions and submitted everything wholly to the King[948]. Perhaps the +threat of a prosecution had been made in order to secure this +submission. On 29 June 1537 the Earl died and the King at last entered +upon the inheritance that he had coveted so long[949]. + +Young Sir Ralph Evers, who had defended Scarborough Castle against the +rebels, must have appeared to be perfectly secure of the King’s favour, +yet he also fell under suspicion. He had been ordered to seize the goods +of the quondam prior of Guisborough and of Dr John Pickering, and he was +charged with embezzling some of the money[950]. The charge was very +likely true, but his gains cannot have been great, and at a time when +pickings were so plentiful his conduct was hardly worthy of remark. + +A more serious matter against him was his alleged letter to Sir John +Bulmer, which contained disrespectful comments on Norfolk and +Cromwell[951]. Norfolk examined him about it on 11 July and was +favourably impressed by his answers. The Duke advised that Evers should +be summoned to London, although he was in very bad health, suffering +apparently from a serious abscess in his ear. Norfolk did not think he +could live long, and suggested that the letter had been forged against +him by his enemy Sir Roger Cholmeley[952]. Evers insisted that he had +not written the treasonable passages, on the very good grounds that he +could neither read nor write more than his own name[953]. Sir Ralph was +at Windsor in July[954], but returned safely to the north in +August[955]. His summons to London at such a time naturally caused his +family the greatest anxiety. His wife was reported to have said, “There +is twenty of the best in Yorkshire hath sent me word that if my husband +were in any danger, that they would rise and fetch him out or else die +therefore,” and also that if her husband were in any danger above, it +would turn to a worse business than the death of any man that died in +Yorkshire. Two servants who tried to lay information against her were +imprisoned by John Evers, Sir Ralph’s brother, in the parsonage of +Lythe, near Whitby. They contrived to escape to Sir Ralph’s enemy Sir +Roger Cholmeley, and laid their accusations against Lady Evers[956] and +her brother-in-law, but Norfolk treated the matter lightly, perhaps +because her words were true and he dared not meddle with her[957]. +Norfolk came to the conclusion that the incriminating letter had been +written by one of Evers’ servants, but he was satisfied with the +punishment of the servant, and overlooked the offence of the +master[958]. + +The King’s auditors on 28 December 1536 accused Lord Conyers of +hindering them in their collection of the royal rents, “for some said if +he commanded [the tenants] they would pay, insomuch that Mr Fulthorpe, +constable of the Castle [of Middleham] urged him to further the +audit.”[959] This was duly noted, and as soon as the King could act with +safety Lord Conyers was sent for and put in ward. By Norfolk’s advice, +however, he was released instead of being brought to trial. Lord Conyers +returned home and incurred the King’s further displeasure by breaking +“his promise at his departure from Windsor,” whatever that may have +been[960]. Nevertheless he escaped further trouble. + +Lord Latimer’s danger was even greater. He was vaguely implicated in the +Bulmer conspiracy, and it was known that he had suggested at Pontefract +that the clergy should be asked whether it was ever lawful for subjects +to rebel. He was also connected with Sir Francis Bigod, whose baby son +Ralph was pledged to Lord Latimer’s daughter Margaret[961]. Latimer was +summoned to London at the same time as Sir John Bulmer, but he never +obeyed the summons[962]. At length, about the middle of June, Norfolk +induced him to go up to London as a suitor on his own affairs; the Duke +was not scrupulous in such matters, but perhaps it was as a salve to his +conscience that he wrote to Cromwell that he could find no evidence +against Latimer[963]. + +Lord Latimer had been proposed as a member of the Council of the North, +but his name was struck off the list[964]. He arrived in London about 29 +June[965], and his friends gave him up for lost. His brother Thomas +Nevill, hearing of his journey, exclaimed to his wife, “Alas, Mary, my +brother is cast away. By God’s Blood, if I had the King here I would +make him that he should never take man into the Tower.” Hearing a poor +woman lamenting that the parson of Aldham, Essex, who had been arrested +for treason, “should be put to death upon a false wretch’s saying,” +Nevill replied, “No, Margaret, he shall not be put to death, for he hath +no lands nor goods to lose; but if he were either a knight or a lord +that had lands or goods to lose, then he should lose his life.”[966] Yet +lands and goods might save a life as well as destroy it. Lord Latimer +escaped for the time by means of a bribe to Cromwell in the form of his +house within the Charterhouse churchyard, the lease of which had cost +Latimer 100 marks, besides his expenses on many improvements[967]. + +Lord Lumley came up to London with Lord Latimer, and saved himself in +the same way. The evidence which connected him with the Bulmer +conspiracy was fairly clear, but he sent a substantial bribe to +Cromwell, with the hint that, in consequence of his son’s attainder, he +could make whomsoever he pleased his heir[968]. By these means he was +enabled to die in his bed. + +It is not likely that Latimer and Lumley would have been able to buy +themselves off if the King had really determined upon their death, but +in the case of Lumley the royal vengeance was satisfied by the execution +of his son George Lumley, and after the trials of Darcy and Hussey Henry +must have realised that it would not be easy to secure a conviction on +the very slender evidence which was all that could be produced against +Latimer. Barons and lesser nobles were the only men whose trials gave +Henry any difficulty. The great nobles, Buckingham, Exeter, Norfolk, +made so many enemies, that it was easy to accomplish their fall. +Knights, country gentlemen, and common people were at the King’s mercy. +But barons must be tried by their peers, who were collectively too +powerful to be intimidated; and these judges were led by a strong class +spirit to sympathise with their unfortunate fellow-peer who stood before +them. Before this Lord Dacre had been acquitted[969]; later the King +found it impossible to bring Lord Delaware to trial[970], and even at +the present crisis the peers made an effort to save Lord Darcy. Lord +Hussey excited less sympathy, being comparatively an upstart. + +Darcy was committed to the Tower on 7 April 1537[971], and on the 8th +the King sent orders to Norfolk to seize his lands, papers, etc.[972] +There was some apprehension at court that his arrest might provoke a +fresh rising, but Norfolk had taken his precautions, and assured +Cromwell that there was no danger[973], while he seized the goods in +accordance with his orders[974]. + +Darcy was examined at the Lord Chancellor’s house about 16 April[975]. +He did not make a patient subject for cross-examination; he knew that +his doom was fixed and, like Macbeth, he turned upon his enemies: + + “They have tied me to a stake; I cannot fly, + But bear-like I must fight the course——.” + +He greeted his examiners with the words: “I am here now at your +pleasure; ye may do your pleasure with me. I have read that men that +have been in cases like with their prince as ye be now have come at the +last to the same end that ye would now bring me unto. And so may ye come +to the same.”[976] He accused Surrey; he most probably accused +Norfolk[977]; he defied Cromwell with the famous challenge: “Cromwell, +it is thou that art the very original and chief causer of all this +rebellion and mischief, and art likewise causer of the apprehension of +us that be noble men and dost daily earnestly travail to bring us to our +end and to strike off our heads, and I trust that or thou die, though +thou wouldst procure all the noblemen’s heads within the realm to be +stricken off, yet shall there one head remain that shall strike off thy +head.”[978] + +Darcy was examined again in the Tower before his trial[979], but the +fragments of his answers on the first occasion show plainly the reason +why the full record of them has not been preserved. It must have been a +very spirited document, but too many people were interested in its +destruction for it to survive, while there was no motive for keeping it, +as it incriminated none of the other Pilgrims. This is proved by the +summaries of the evidence against the different prisoners, and the +memoranda for the prosecution. In these the names of the witnesses +against each prisoner are given, with references to the examinations and +depositions containing the evidence. Not a single person was accused by +Darcy; not a single charge was strengthened by his evidence. He made +good his vaunt that “Old Tom has not one traitor’s tooth in his head.” + +All Darcy’s papers were seized and sent to London; they were very +numerous, for he kept copies of almost every letter that he ever +received or wrote[980]. His method of writing was to make a rough copy +of the letter himself in his large, bold, uncouth handwriting with +individualistic spelling; this was given to one of his secretaries who +made one fair copy, or perhaps several if the matter was important. Out +of this correspondence the Crown lawyers proceeded to pick treason, and +their notes show the kind of evidence which must have been given at the +trial as proof of the charges in the indictment[981]. + +This evidence falls into three classes, (1) the treasonable acts which +he was accused of committing since the King’s pardon; (2) those which he +committed during the rebellion; (3) those which he had committed before +the period covered by the pardon which extended from 10 October to 10 +December 1536[982]. + +(1) The principal evidence in the first category was that Darcy in his +letters about Bigod’s rising had repeatedly stated that Norfolk was +coming down to confirm the general pardon and to appoint the time for +the new parliament and convocation, that he came with but a small +company, and that the commons must remain quiet until he arrived[983]. +This was twisted into treason on the grounds that it implied, if the +terms were not confirmed, according to the rebels’ unreasonable +requests, “they will revive their traitors’ hearts; meanwhile they are +to stay but upon the Duke’s coming.” This charge is obviously nonsense. +Darcy believed the King’s solemn and repeated assurances that he +pardoned everybody, and that he would hold a free parliament. Now that +the King did not mean to keep his promises, it was suggested that +Darcy’s faith in the royal word was treason. Darcy believed that Norfolk +brought from the King conciliatory messages which would satisfy the +commons, and take away their wish to rebel again. In this mistaken +belief he pacified the country, and this was also considered a proof of +treason. + +Another piece of evidence on which stress was laid was that Levening, +“one of the principal traitors with Bigod,” had asked Darcy to speak to +Norfolk on his behalf, and that Darcy had never reported his +application[984]. This shows the King’s superb command over +circumstances. Levening was not a traitor. He had been tried and +acquitted; legally he was an innocent man, and it could not possibly be +treason to help him to clear his character. But in spite of the verdict +of the jury the King had made up his mind that Levening was a traitor, +and as a traitor he was to appear in all other trials. + +More evidence against Darcy was gleaned from Parker’s letter which +described the state of Lancashire at Christmas time[985]. It was a +report of muttered discontent and threatening preparations. Cromwell +commented on it that Parker would not have written this if it had not +been Lord Darcy’s pleasure[986], which shows the kind of report that he +expected from his own spies; but it appears from the letter itself that +Parker was far from sure that Darcy would be pleased, for he said, “My +lord, I beseech your lord[ship] be not miscontent with me if [I show +your] lordship what their communing is in all this country.” Cromwell’s +other objection, that Darcy never reported Parker’s warning to the royal +lieutenants, was absolutely false. Darcy wrote to Shrewsbury about it on +7 January[987]. + +Further evidence related to Darcy’s alleged message to Aske before the +latter went up to London at Christmas. This has already been discussed +and disproved[988]. + +Sir John Bulmer’s statement that he sent Darcy warning not to go to +London was mentioned, but this point was not dwelt upon, as even +Cromwell must have realised that there was no proof that Darcy had +received the message, and he certainly had not acted upon it[989]. + +Darcy’s recent stewardship of Pontefract Castle was called in question, +and it was considered equally treasonable that he had suggested the +delay of its re-equipment for a few days[990], and that, when Sir George +Darcy insisted on speed, he had applied to Aske for the weapons which +had been carried off by the rebels[991]. + +One of the notes deals with an interesting point in the second +negotiations at Doncaster. It was alleged that Darcy wrote to Suffolk +and Shrewsbury to require that the appointment should be observed in +Lincolnshire, and that no prisoners should be executed. As none is known +to have been put to death until March this probably was in fact part of +the appointment[992]. + +The last accusation of this class was that Darcy, in a letter which has +not been preserved, invited Aske to meet Chaloner, Grice and Sir Robert +Constable at Templehurst, ending “I trust in our being together shall +stay many things, and all good men I find well-minded thereunto, your +faithful, Thomas Darcy.” Against this it was objected that the meeting +was suspicious, and that “by the words ‘your faithful’ it appears there +is great fidelity betwixt the Lord Darcy and Robert Aske, being but a +mean person.”[993] + +A puzzling note in the evidence states that Darcy, in Lent, sent a copy +of one of Norfolk’s letters to “the prior of Whalley now attainted”; +this showed that he favoured a traitor[994]. There is some mistake here, +for the prior of Whalley was not a traitor; it was the abbot who was +condemned for treason[995]. Talbot deposed that one of Aske’s servants +gave him a copy of a letter from Norfolk to Darcy, which he delivered to +the abbot of Whalley, but the witness did not state when this +happened[996]. It is by no means improbable that Cromwell simply +invented the date, “in Lent,” and that the letter referred to was really +the one found in the vicar of Blackburn’s house, which had been sent out +in November with the summons to the council at Pontefract[997]. Aske’s +letter about the same council is also mis-endorsed “since the +appointment.”[998] + +(2) The second class of evidence against Darcy ought not to have been +brought into the case, as the events were covered by his pardon. It was +no longer a matter of importance whether the surrender of Pontefract +Castle was collusive[999], whether Darcy took the rebels’ oath[1000], +what he said to Somerset Herald[1001], or whether he proposed to send a +message to Flanders[1002]. All this should have been obliterated by his +pardon of 18 January 1536–7[1003]. Nevertheless minute inquiries were +made on all these points in order to blacken the case against him. + +Owing to his high office and influential position there were naturally a +great many papers relating to different periods of the rising in Darcy’s +possession. Some had been sent to him before the siege of Pontefract by +the King’s lieutenants, while he was still acting for the King[1004]; +others had been intercepted during the rebellion or had been sent to him +by the rebels[1005]; while others again were later than the pardon, when +he was once more acting for the King[1006]. The possession of these +letters was the necessary consequence of the position which Darcy had +filled for many years, yet it was considered highly suspicious, and was +magnified into treason. + +Other accusations which fall under this head had more point. By +investigating the problem of the Pilgrims’ badges it might have been +possible to prove that Darcy had foreknowledge of the insurrection, +although as a matter of fact nothing incriminating was discovered[1007]. +The government was naturally anxious to learn who were the Pilgrims’ +southern friends, as although Darcy’s share of the correspondence was +covered by the pardon, the other parties’ share was not; but Darcy +accused no one[1008]. On this subject a story was sent to Cromwell that +a certain beggar “said he had a letter from Lord Darcy to my lord of +Exeter in his cape.” The cape was cut to pieces, and the remains of a +letter, also cut up, were discovered. The finder, Sir Walter Stonor, +sent the fragments to Cromwell, but he did not put much faith in the +tale, as both the beggar and his accuser were “very simple men.”[1009] +In an age of such universal suspicion there was an immense temptation to +half-witted people to acquire a dangerous importance by making +accusations and professing to know secrets. Instances of this tendency +have been given already, and this must have been another case, for +although Cromwell was eager to implicate southern noblemen in the +rebellion, nothing more is heard of the story. + +(3) Finally comes evidence that Darcy had committed treason before the +beginning of the insurrection. Here the prosecution was really on firmer +ground. They suspected as much, but they had even less real proof than +in other parts of the case. At this point a curious problem arises. +There was no substantial evidence that Darcy had committed treason since +the pardon; but from Chapuys’ correspondence we know now that he had +been guilty of treason two years before. The government suspected the +earlier plot, but had never been able to prove it. Can it be said that +justice was done when Darcy was executed? + +So many innocent persons were put to death in Henry’s reign that +historians are apt to dwell with relief on any defects in the character +of the condemned, no matter how irrelevant they may be to the charge on +which he suffered. Darcy was tried and executed for a crime which he had +not committed, but he had committed a crime for which, if his guilt +could have been proved, he would have been executed. Unless the +principle is adopted that the wickedness of some people is such that it +is right to shoot them at sight, this is not a satisfactory way of +administering justice. Even a criminal is entitled to a fair trial, and +to acquittal when he is not guilty of the particular crime with which he +is charged. + +To return to the evidence against Darcy,—nothing could be proved, but a +few rash speeches were brought up against him, which did not amount to +treason. He had said that he would be no heretic[1010], and that it was +better to rule than to be ruled, but the utmost severity was needed to +construe this into a plot against the King’s title or life[1011]. A +witness was found in the person of a chantry priest, who deposed that he +had been told that Darcy said, on hearing of the rebellion in +Lincolnshire, “Ah, are they up in Lincolnshire? If they had done this +three years ago it had been a much better world than it is now.” The +same deponent had also been told of another speech of Darcy’s, +apparently after the pardon, “By God’s blessed mother, if the commons +should happen to rise again, where there were then two shaven crowns +that did take their parts, there will now be four.”[1012] These speeches +are reported on no authority but that of hearsay, and were repeated +eight and four months after they were alleged to have been uttered. They +would not be admitted as evidence in any law-court now, but no such nice +scruples were entertained in Henry VIII’s reign. + +There may have been an attempt to accuse Darcy of plotting to murder +Wolsey. The following notes are in the “articles against Lord +Darcy”:—“First, the destruction of the Cardinal in the Chancery”; “For +the gunpowder to burn my Lord Cardinal.”[1013] Apparently the charge +broke down. Norfolk tried to support it by sending Darcy’s “book” +against Wolsey. Darcy had taken the chief part in the Cardinal’s +prosecution and this “book” probably contained the charges brought +against the latter with the consent of the King. Norfolk, however, said +it showed that “the said lord has been long dissatisfied with the King’s +affairs, and the King may by his great wisdom pick out some matters long +since imagined.”[1014] “The book that the Lord Darcy made against the +Cardinal” was entered among the evidence against Darcy[1015]. + +Other pieces of evidence were picked out of Darcy’s old papers,—an +indenture with a servant of quite an ordinary type[1016], an order dated +June 1536 for a statute book, which Cromwell thought “might be +conspiracy before the insurrection.”[1017] But these points, and perhaps +some of the others, must probably have appeared even to the King’s +lawyers too slight to be brought up at the trial. + +It is difficult to know what to say about such pieces of evidence as +these, so trivial, so disingenuous, and yet treated as of sufficient +weight to cost a man his life. When the morality of another age is +strikingly unlike our own, we are apt to excuse it on the grounds that +it was the custom of the time, and that people knew no better. But this +will not serve to excuse the treason trials of Henry VIII. People did +know better. All intelligent and honourable men knew that the King was +not doing justice. There is abundant proof in the preceding pages of +this book that no class of society believed it to be just or right or +necessary for the common safety to put men to death “for a word +speaking,” particularly when the evidence that the word had been spoken +was only hearsay or was supplied by those who had an interest in the +death of the accused. The treason laws, and trials such as those of +More, Fisher and the Carthusian monks, in the previous year, excited so +much horror as to provoke the rebellion. The rising was at first +successful; it was overcome not by force, nor by the rally of any +considerable party round the throne, but by treachery. The King in the +moment of victory was able to do as he pleased, for the defeated +opposition was bewildered, terrified and helpless. But laws and legal +proceedings of the kind which in part caused the revolt cannot +reasonably be called a bulwark of national safety, nor is it altogether +just to say that they were willingly accepted and supported by the +nation. + +On 15 May 1537 Lord Darcy was brought to trial in Westminster Hall on +the indictment which had been found at York. The Marquis of Exeter was +appointed Lord High Steward for the trial, and the panel of peers was +composed of the Marquis of Dorset, the Earls of Oxford, Shrewsbury, +Essex, Cumberland, Wiltshire and Sussex, Viscount Beauchamp, and Lords +Delaware, Cobham, Maltravers, Powes, Morley, Clinton, Dacre of the +South, Mountjoy, Windsor, Bray, Mordaunt, Borough and Cromwell[1018]. It +will be observed that Cromwell, who took the chief part in drawing up +the indictment, was also one of the judges. + +Darcy pleaded not guilty, and his peers were by no means willing to +convict him according to a friend of Delaware, who said that Delaware, +on coming from the trial, had told him he trusted Darcy would lose +neither life nor goods, as Cromwell had promised to do his best for +him[1019]. Darcy could have told them the folly of listening to such a +promise,—“he that will lay his head on the block may have it soon +stricken off,”[1020] but the tale served its purpose. The lords found +him guilty, and if Cromwell intervened his petition was useless. The +trial was on Tuesday, and it was at first intended that the execution +should take place on Saturday. Darcy faced the prospect with great +firmness; “Lord Darcy is a very bold man,” wrote Husee[1021]. On Friday +Darcy sent for his confessor to be with him early next morning; he asked +for either Doctor Aglabe of the Black Friars nigh Ludgate, or “the +Doctor of Our Lady Friars in Fleet Street, a big, gross, old man.”[1022] +His death, however, was postponed. The King could not make up his mind +whether it would have a better effect to execute Darcy in London or in +his own country, and until this point was settled he remained in the +Tower. + +On 3 June Norfolk sent up to London Thomas Strangways, Darcy’s steward, +who had just been arrested at Beverley[1023]. He had in his possession +letters to Darcy from Norfolk, Bowes and Ellerker, and the King’s letter +to Bowes and Ellerker[1024]. Norfolk said that the discovery of these +letters showed that the Pilgrims had had spies in the royal camp, but it +is not clear why he thought this, for all these were public documents +which would naturally be circulated in the north. Strangways was “sore +crazed” and could travel only very slowly[1025]. When he reached London +it was supposed that he would “open many matters,”[1026] but “like +master, like man.” Strangways showed all Darcy’s resolution, and made +the King very angry by “labouring to excuse wholly Lord Darcy and +Constable and that with such advancement of the fame of the country +towards them as though our subjects there do much repine at their +punishments, saying also plainly that they be more meet to rule there +than you [Norfolk] be and much better beloved than you be, amongst the +people of those parties.” These words give an impressive picture of the +faithful old servant, sick and helpless, yet daring to speak out before +the terrible King. + +The effect of Strangways’ words was to make Henry almost determined to +send down all the prisoners for execution in the north. He wrote to +Norfolk: + + “Considering that this matter of the insurrection hath been attempted + there, and thinking that as well for the example as to see who would + groan at their execution, it should be meet to have them executed at + Doncaster and thereabouts; minding, upon their sufferance, to knit up + this tragedy, we think it should not be amiss that we should send the + said Darcy, Constable and Aske down for that purpose; requiring you, + with diligence, to advertise us of your opinion in that behalf.”[1027] + +Norfolk’s reply has not been preserved, but he dared not risk the effect +of Darcy’s execution in the north; the idea was given up, and the old +lord’s life was prolonged again. + +Darcy never entertained any hope of mercy. In June he sent a petition to +the King, asking, not for pardon, but “that the straitness of the +judgment may be mitigated at the King’s pleasure.” He had been condemned +to the usual death for treason, but he was allowed the privilege of his +rank and was beheaded. He also requested “to have confession and, at +mass, to receive my Maker”; and begged that his whole body might be +buried by that of his second wife Lady Nevill in the Friary at +Greenwich. He sent in a list of his debts, which were small, begging +that they might be paid; “the premises served is great merit in, and to +me a singular comfort, and to his Grace a small matter.” He added that +he forgave the King a debt of £4400 which the Treasury owed him, and +therefore trusted that his Grace “will the rather command the +within-written debts to be paid.”[1028] On June 30 1537 Lord Darcy was +beheaded on Tower Hill[1029]. His last wishes were not observed, for his +head was exposed on London Bridge, and his body was buried “at the +Crossed Friars beside the Tower of London.”[1030] On 22 July Darcy was +posthumously degraded from his rank as Knight of the Garter, and his +vacant stall was bestowed upon Cromwell[1031]. The overthrow of the old +by the new could not be more emphatically marked. + +During Darcy’s imprisonment his sons were in the north, scrambling for a +share in the monastic lands. But there is perhaps a touch of natural +feeling in a letter dated 3 May to the King from Sir Arthur, Darcy’s +younger and favourite son, in which he requested that if his father was +condemned, he might be allowed to change his lands for others in the +south, because he would never again “rejoice to abide here.”[1032] + +Lord Hussey’s wavering fortunes since the insurrection have already been +traced. He had been accused, but never brought to trial; the accusation +had been allowed to fall into abeyance, but he had never been pardoned. +His trial was in one sense fairer than Darcy’s, but in another even less +fair. Darcy had openly committed treason, and borne arms against the +King, but he had been pardoned. Hussey had never received a pardon, and +consequently he was liable at any time to be brought to judgment for his +behaviour during the rising in Lincolnshire, but on the other hand he +had never committed any definitely treasonable act. + +Hussey was arrested at about the same time as Darcy, and was imprisoned +in the Tower[1033]. He was present at Darcy’s first examination[1034]. +His wife, who was living at Limehouse, was allowed to visit him, and he +repeated to her such of Darcy’s answers as are given above. All her +misfortunes had not taught Lady Hussey discretion. She repeated the +words to her servant Katharine Cresswell, the wife of Percival +Cresswell, and the story soon spread abroad[1035]. + +The evidence against Hussey was much less bulky than that against Darcy, +and it falls into two classes. The first was that relating to his +conduct during the Lincolnshire insurrection. This has been fully +discussed above[1036]. His acts all showed him to be loyal; he sent out +warnings, he tried to raise men, he kept his district quiet, and when +resistance was hopeless he fled to the royal camp. Against the evidence +of such conduct there was nothing to oppose but spiteful gossip, +conjectures and perversions of evidence. It was said that though he +received warning of the revolt on Monday, he did nothing until +Wednesday[1037], a statement which was contradicted by the Mayor of +Lincoln’s evidence that Hussey ordered him to prepare to resist the +rebels on Tuesday[1038]. It was brought up against Hussey that his +servant Cutler, when in the power of the rebels, had told them that his +master was at their commandment[1039], but as the rebels had two days +before killed Lord Borough’s servant because his master opposed them, +Cutler’s words were clearly an attempt to save his own life, and no +weight could attach to them. Finally Hussey was said to have ordered his +servants to hide his weapons, but the witness admitted that this was +probably to keep them out of the rebels’ hands[1040]. + +In Hussey’s case, as in Darcy’s, there was a second set of accusations +which really had more foundation in fact. He had been in communication +with the Imperial ambassador in 1534, although he had only sent him a +single message of no importance[1041]. His prosecutors laboured hard to +prove his earlier offence. On his arrest he had uttered some imprudent +words about the supper party with Darcy and Constable which had happened +so long ago[1042], but he gave a perfectly clear and simple account of +what had passed there[1043]. One witness was found who deposed that +Hussey had said two years before that heresy would never be mended +“without we fight,”[1044] but even the crown lawyers could not consider +this sufficient to condemn him, and in the end he was indicted only for +his share in the Lincolnshire rising. + +Lord Hussey was tried with Darcy, pleaded not guilty, and was +condemned[1045]. No one seems to have made any effort to obtain the +King’s mercy on his behalf. If Norfolk had been in London he might have +done something. His connection with Hussey was not very creditable to +either, being based on the relationship which Norfolk’s mistress bore to +Hussey, but it was useful, as he had interceded for Hussey before[1046]. +Norfolk went so far as to say that he was sorry for the sentence, though +no doubt it was deserved[1047]; the Duke suggested that Hussey might +have sent the rebels information during the insurrection[1048]. + +Hussey sent a petition to the King praying that his debts might be paid, +and earnestly asserting his innocence, but he made no useless appeal for +mercy[1049]. He remained in the Tower until late in June, when the King +resolved that he should be executed at Lincoln[1050]. On 28 June he left +the Tower on his last journey, in the custody of Sir Thomas +Wentworth[1051]. The King sent orders that he was to be beheaded and +that the Duke of Suffolk must supervise his death, “which we desire may +be done notably, with a declaration that of our clemency we have +pardoned all the rest of the judgment.”[1052] The exact date of his +death is not known, but it did not have altogether the required effect +of striking awe into the hearts of the people, as it was followed by a +riot in the city, about which unfortunately no details are +preserved[1053]. + +Hussey’s fate was more sordidly tragic than Darcy’s. Darcy died a martyr +to the faith which he loved; he desired nothing better than “so high +perfection,” and to pity him would be an impertinence. But Hussey was +killed merely to satisfy the causeless suspicion of the King and the +malice of his enemies. There is even reason to suppose that his +religious views had undergone some modification since he said he would +be no heretic. No religious rites are mentioned in his last petition to +the King[1054], and a friend had shortly before promised to send him “a +fair Bible.”[1055] The evidence is slender, and the point is not of much +importance; if we are right it serves to emphasise the needless cruelty +of his death. + +The trial of the other Pilgrims followed immediately after that of the +two lords. On Wednesday 16 May 1537 at eight o’clock in the +morning[1056] Sir Francis Bigod, George Lumley, Sir John Bulmer, +Margaret Cheyne alias Lady Bulmer, Ralph Bulmer, Sir Thomas Percy, Sir +Stephen Hamerton, Sir Robert Constable and Robert Aske were tried in +Westminster Hall[1057] upon the indictment which had been returned as a +true bill at York and ran as follows:— + + “That [the prisoners] did, 10 October 28 Henry VIII [1536] as false + traitors, with other traitors, at Sherburn, Yorks., conspire to + deprive the King of his title of Supreme Head of the English Church, + and to compel him to hold a certain Parliament and convocation of the + clergy of the realm, and did commit divers insurrections etc. at + Pontefract, divers days and times before the said 10 October. And at + Doncaster, 20 October 28 Henry VIII, traitorously assembled to levy + war, and so continued a long time. And although the King in his great + mercy pardoned the said [prisoners] their offences committed before 10 + December 28 Henry VIII; nevertheless they, persevering in their + treasons, on 17 January 28 Henry VIII [1536–7] at Settrington, + Templehurst, Flamborough, Beverley and elsewhere, after the same + pardon, again falsely conspired for the above said purposes and to + annul divers wholesome laws made for the common weal, and to depose + the King; and to that end sent divers letters and messengers to each + other, 18 January 28 Henry VIII, and at other days and times after the + said pardon. And that Sir Francis Bigod and George Lumley, 21 January + 28 Henry VIII, and divers days and times after the said pardon, at + Settrington, Beverley, and Scarborough, and elsewhere, with a great + multitude in arms, did make divers traitorous proclamations to call + men to them to make war against the King, and having thereby assembled + 500 persons, did, 22 January 28 Henry VIII, levy war against the King. + + And thus the said jury say that Bigod and Lumley conspired to levy + cruel war against the King. And moreover the said jury say that the + others above named, 22 January 28 Henry VIII etc. falsely and + traitorously abetted the said Bigod and Lumley in their said + treasons.”[1058] + +The clumsy practice of including so many people accused of different +offences under one vague indictment makes it necessary to disentangle +each case in detail and in the order named above. + +The Grey Friars’ Chronicler records that “On 13 March 1536–7 Sir Francis +Bigod was brought out of the North to the Tower through Smithfield and +in at Newgate, riding so through Cheapside and so to the Tower, and Sir +Ralph Ellerker leading him by the hand with that he was bound +withal.”[1059] Bigod was in the Tower for a little less than three +months, but the government was scandalously overcharged for his +maintenance, as the Lieutenant put his charges down for six months at +10_s._ a week[1060]. + +Before Sir Francis was sent up to London, he had been examined +repeatedly by Norfolk, who was rather annoyed that, though Bigod did not +disguise his own offence, he would not accuse anyone else except Gregory +Conyers[1061]. In his confession he was obliged to mention the names of +his brother Ralph and a friend Thomas Wentworth, but he was careful to +add, “and whereas I take testimony at [_call to witness_] my brother and +Mr Wentworth, I trust you will bear them no displeasure, and if you send +for them, do not say why, else the country and they will fear I have +accused them as councillors in this naughty matter of Hallam’s and mine, +of which [so] help me the blessed Body of God which yesterday I +received, an they are any [_sic_] more guilty than the child unborn; so +far as I know; and my mother, having no more children but us twain, +would be too full of sorrow.” Bigod’s confession ended with a petition +that, whatever his own fate might be, Norfolk would help two preachers, +Mr Jherom, who had not his fellow for preaching, and one Cervington, +“who in my country dare not come because he is a true favourer of God’s +word; he is a proper gentleman and honest, and can do good service at a +table among other qualities.”[1062] So Sir Francis concluded, +enigmatical to the last. He was about to die for the old religion, and +his last written words are a commendation of the new. His former friend +Latimer overlooked his backsliding and protected his widow and +children[1063]. + +Bigod’s accomplice George Lumley had been in the Tower since the +beginning of February. He was examined there on 8 Feb. by Cromwell and +Drs Tregonwell, Layton and Legh[1064]. Nothing is known about the +details of his imprisonment. + +Sir Christopher Hailes, the Master of the Rolls, appeared against Bigod +and Lumley at their trial[1065]. They both pleaded not guilty, and were +both condemned[1066]. There can be no doubt as to the justice of their +sentence; their offences were apparent and openly confessed by +themselves. The simplicity of George Lumley’s conduct might have pleaded +for him in more favourable circumstances, but where there was little +hope of justice there was none at all of mercy. The King had a +particular reason for his death. It had seemingly been decided that the +government dared not attempt to arrest Lord Lumley, but he could be made +to suffer for his offences through his son. + +After his trial George Lumley wrote to his wife to beg her to pay his +debts, of which he enclosed a list. His letter continued: + + “Be good mother and natural to my three children to whom I give God’s + blessing and mine, desiring you further always to instruct my son to + honour God and be obedient to His laws, and next God to give his + diligent attendance to do his duty in loving, dreading and fearing his + presence (? _prince_), observing his laws and to be obedient to them, + and so doing I trust I shall pray in Heaven for you.”[1067] + +The Bulmers were not long in the Tower, as Sir John and his wife had +been placed there on or after 21 April. Ralph Bulmer had been committed +to the Fleet, whence he wrote to Sir Oswald Wolsthrope on 6 May that he +doubted not but that the truth would justify the declaration of his +allegiance to his sovereign[1068]. Before the trial he was sent to join +his father in the Tower[1069]. Humphrey Browne serjeant-at-law conducted +the prosecution against Sir John and Lady Bulmer, and John Baker the +attorney-general against Ralph Bulmer[1070]. + +The case against Sir John was fairly clear, although the most +incriminating piece of evidence, his letter to his brother Sir William +Bulmer, was not discovered until nine months after his death, when it +came to light in consequence of a family quarrel. On 23 February 1537–8 +Sir William visited his wife and had a violent dispute with her over +some of her title deeds. After he had left her, she imagined that he +might have taken possession of some valuable documents, and proceeded +with the help of a servant and a friar to go through her husband’s +papers. Among them she discovered Sir John’s letter, and seeing that it +was treasonable, she laid it before the Council of the North, “as in +duty bound,” said Bishop Tunstall[1071]. Sir William was arrested and +imprisoned in Pontefract Castle in consequence of her information, and +from his examination some particulars of Sir John’s conduct appear, +which were not known at his trial in 1537[1072]. Nevertheless enough was +proved by the evidence of his chaplain William Staynhus, who seems to +have saved his life by turning King’s evidence against his master and +mistress. He was corroborated to some extent by Lord Lumley, John Watts, +and Ralph Bulmer’s confession[1073]. + +Just before the trial Norfolk sent up to London some papers which he had +seized at Sir John Bulmer’s house. He admitted that these letters had +been written before the pardon, but said that they showed that “no man +had a more cankered heart” than Sir John, for “I think ye never read +more lewd nor more malicious letters which I, Babthorpe, Thirleby and +Uvedale every of us have perused his part for haste.”[1074] No letters +which correspond with this description have been preserved. They must +have been written to Sir John, unless he, like Darcy, kept copies of his +own letters, of which there is no proof. Most of the letters to Sir John +which are still extant were written after the pardon and are very loyal +in tone[1075]. There is also a collection of deeds relating to the +Bulmer estates[1076], and one family letter[1077]. The only papers which +could be turned against Sir John Bulmer relate to the monastery of +Guisborough; one was the order sent by the Pilgrims’ council of York, +which directed Sir John to maintain the Prior of Guisborough in the +enjoyment of his office, and the other was an appeal sent by the Prior +to Sir John for help in the management of his unruly monks[1078]. As the +Prior had been put in by Cromwell, this appeal is evidence rather in +favour of Sir John, but it was very dangerous for any gentleman to +meddle in the affairs of a monastery, and an equally innocent document +was sufficient to cost the lives of Percy, Hamerton and Tempest. It may +be, therefore, that these were the lewd letters to which Norfolk +referred. + +Sir John Bulmer had not borne arms against the King since the pardon, +but he had become involved in a succession of plots, none of them +sufficiently well-contrived for success, but each enough to cost him his +life. His case shows the danger which the over-severity of the law +brought upon the government. Sir John had been drawn into treason by +accident. There is no proof that he desired Sir Francis Bigod’s +confidence, or that he wished to help him. His original crime was a +natural reluctance to hand his nephew over to the executioner. Knowing +that the government would refuse to take this into consideration, he was +driven by terror and despair from plot to plot, whereas if he could have +expected mercy, he would probably have committed himself no further. + +The charges against Margaret and Ralph Bulmer rested only on the +evidence of William Staynhus and Sir John himself, the two men whom +above all others they must have believed to be most trustworthy[1079]. +It is not just to blame Sir John too much for this. In his written +confession he neither admitted his own guilt nor accused anyone else. He +offered to find a hidden treasure for the King, which was perhaps as +good a defence as any[1080]. But a weak-willed, impetuous man of his +type must have been helpless under cross-examination. He was brought to +confess his own offences, and those of his family, although against the +will of his judges he persisted in calling Margaret his wife to the +last[1081]. Their union may have been irregular, but it was founded on +sincere affection. Margaret knew all his plans; she hoped for success +while success was possible, and when all had failed she counselled him +to fly and save both their lives. Sir William Bulmer’s lawful wife +dutifully betrayed him. Margaret was faithful to the last. She seems to +have given no evidence and made no confession. + +Ralph Bulmer was accused both of foreknowledge of Bigod’s rising and of +sending treasonable messages from London. The only witness against him +who is named is his father[1082]. + +At the trial Sir John and Margaret pleaded not guilty, but Ralph’s plea +is not recorded. After the jury had retired, however, they withdrew +their plea and substituted guilty. In consequence of this the jury was +exonerated from giving a verdict and they were both condemned, Sir John +to the usual penalty for treason, Margaret to be burnt. The jury was +also exonerated from giving a verdict in Ralph’s case, and he was +re-committed to the Tower[1083]. His name remains carved on the wall in +the Beauchamp Tower. He was still imprisoned there in the following year +and it is not certain when, if ever, he was released[1084]. + +Sir Thomas Percy and his brother Sir Ingram had come up to London +immediately after Norfolk’s arrival in the north. As they were perfectly +well aware that the King was anxious to get rid of them, the very fact +of their coming shows a strong conviction of innocence. There are two +points in Sir Thomas’ behaviour since the pardon which are suspicious, +but it is a remarkable circumstance that neither of these is mentioned +in the notes for the proceedings against him. The first was his +interview with William Leache, the Lincolnshire fugitive, as deposed by +George Shuttleworth. The second was the meeting at Rothbury in January, +at which he was alleged to have forced some gentlemen to take the +Pilgrims’ oath. As neither of these charges was brought forward, it must +be concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support them. There +was in fact nothing to show what passed between Sir Thomas and Leache; +it is not even certain that he knew who Leache was, as the fugitive may +have concealed his name. The evidence with regard to the Rothbury +meeting rests on an unsigned paper which was probably drawn up by Sir +Reynold Carnaby, the Percys’ mortal enemy. + +The charges which were brought against Sir Thomas might be substantiated +by evidence, but they were of a very trivial character in themselves, as +they rested merely upon letters which had been sent to him, for which he +could not justly be considered responsible. The prosecution laid great +stress on the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication, yet it was not only +harmless in itself, but Sir Thomas could not possibly have prevented the +Abbot from writing and sending it. Sir Thomas’ reply was non-committal, +and the only accusation which could be founded upon it was that he had +not arrested the messenger, a step for which there was no apparent +reason[1085]. + +The second incriminating document was Bigod’s letter, which was +forwarded to Sir Thomas by his mother. To this he had returned no +answer, and he declared that it was respect for his mother which had +prevented him from arresting the messenger, her servant[1086]. + +The third alleged letter was a very mysterious one, connected with the +rising in Richmondshire. Ninian Staveley deposed that the Abbot of +Jervaux and the quondam Abbot of Fountains ordered himself, Middleton, +Lobley and Servant to send a message to Sir Thomas Percy, bidding him +come forward. They sent a servant to Northumberland, after Twelfth Day +[6 January 1536–7], and the man told them on his return that Sir Thomas +had written down their names and had said that he would send for them +when he came to the country. Both the abbots denied that they had sent +any such message[1087]. Sir Thomas never referred to the matter in his +deposition, and the supposed messenger was never named or produced. +Staveley was quite untrustworthy, and it is probable that the story was +a mere invention. + +Sir Thomas was further charged with his disorderly behaviour in +Northumberland[1088], and with George Lumley’s statement that he was the +“lock, key and ward of this matter.”[1089] There were some grounds for +the first of these two charges, although it rested on the testimony of +his enemy. As for the second, Lumley had been careful to explain that he +was describing Sir Thomas’ influence in Yorkshire, and did not mean that +he had any particular knowledge of the new insurrection. + +Sir Stephen Hamerton came up to London as unsuspiciously as Sir Thomas +Percy. He was examined in the Tower on 25 April by Tregonwell, Layton +and Legh[1090]. The only points alleged against him were the occurrence +of his name in the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication and his meeting with +the Abbot’s messenger[1091]. Even the prosecution admitted that in this +there was no matter against him except before the pardon[1092], but as +usual it was laid to his charge that he had not arrested the +messenger[1093]. A modern lawyer might as well accuse a man of failing +to arrest the postman who delivered a letter containing a forged cheque. +There was a general feeling in the north that messengers ought to have +something of the privilege of heralds; their exemption from +responsibility was both convenient and just, as they were servants who +were obliged to obey their masters’ orders, and did not necessarily know +the contents of the letters that they carried. The government was doing +its best to destroy this privileged position. + +John Hynde, King’s serjeant-at-law, who had been so successful in +Lincolnshire, conducted the prosecution of Sir Thomas Percy and Sir +Stephen Hamerton[1094]. Like the Bulmers they first pleaded not guilty, +and then withdrew the plea and substituted guilty[1095]. There is +something suspicious in this change. The King was always anxious to +obtain a confession of guilt from those whom he intended to execute, and +he did not care what means were employed to attain his object. It is +possible that the prisoners were induced to plead guilty by the promise +of a mitigated sentence. + +Sir Stephen Hamerton was probably a victim to his feud with the +Stanleys[1096]. No other reason can be found for his condemnation, as +the extant evidence against him is trifling and he had not distinguished +himself during the insurrection. The Earl of Derby had done Henry good +service; he probably interested himself in his cousin’s quarrel, and if +he asked for any favour from the King, such as the life of a man, he was +not likely to be refused. Sir Stephen’s son Henry Hamerton died about +two months after his father; it was said that his death was caused by +grief at his father’s execution[1097]. + +Sir Robert Constable was arrested about the same time as Lord +Darcy[1098]. He was examined, but his answers have not been +preserved[1099]. The evidence against him was of the slightest +description. He had been present at the famous dinner party when Darcy, +Hussey, and he declared themselves no heretics[1100], but there was and +is nothing to show that he knew of Darcy’s communications with Chapuys. + +At the beginning of the Lincolnshire rising he “took Philips, a captain +of the commons of Lincolnshire, servant to Lord Hussey, and brought him +to the lords at Nottingham.” They sent Sir Robert to pacify the East +Riding, with orders to join Darcy at Pontefract “if the commons were in +great number.” He was in the Castle when it was surrendered, but he +could not be considered responsible for the act of the commander[1101]. + +The principal evidence against him was based on the letters which he had +received from and sent to Bigod[1102]. In particular Bigod had said that +there was no man whom the commons trusted so much as Constable[1103]. In +his reply Sir Robert urged Bigod to give up his purpose. The concluding +words of his letter, in the original draft which is in Aske’s +handwriting, were “Thus in all your worshipful affairs our Lord be your +governor.”[1104] It is very much to be wished that the history of this +draft could be traced. Perhaps after writing it Aske handed it over to a +servant to be copied. This was Lord Darcy’s method of letter-writing. +The copy would be sent to Bigod, and the original would remain in the +possession of Sir Robert Constable, at whose house it was written. The +copy might fall into the hands of the government when Bigod’s, and the +draft when Constable’s, papers were seized[1105]. But the copy, if it +ever existed, has not been preserved. + +There is a reason for this theorising. At Constable’s trial a certified +copy of the letter was produced, but it does not tally with the draft. +The most important difference is in the conclusion, which, in the +certified copy, runs “Thus in your worshipful affair, our Lord be your +governor.”[1106] The prosecution, of course, insisted that Bigod’s +“worshipful affair” was the insurrection, and that Constable was praying +for its success. The phrase “all your worshipful affairs” has much less +significance. Unless the theory outlined above is accepted as the +history of the letter, the certified copy must have been deliberately +altered from the original draft to strengthen the case against Sir +Robert. On the other hand, if a copy of the original draft was sent to +Bigod, it may have contained whether by accident or intention, the +slight but important variation in the conclusion. Yet if such a version +were in the possession of the government there seems no necessity for a +certified copy. + +Constable was accused, like Darcy, of saying that the King had promised +a general pardon and a free parliament. He had also told the commons to +stay only until the Duke of Norfolk came[1107]. To this he replied that +such were the King’s orders: “The King’s letters to me were to stay the +country till the Duke of Norfolk’s coming, and so I did.”[1108] But it +was useless to plead his own orders to Henry when he did not choose to +acknowledge them. + +Constable’s letter which requested Rudston to liberate Bigod’s +messengers was brought forward, and also the mythical letter to the +mayor of Hull for the deliverance of Hallam[1109]. These letters have +been discussed above[1110]. + +Finally Constable was one of the leaders to whom Levening had appealed, +and in his case, as in the others, Levening’s acquittal was +overlooked[1111]. + +When the prisoners were brought out of the Tower for trial, a mistake +was made in the destination of Sir Robert Constable and Lady Bulmer, who +were sent first to the Guild Hall. The trial took place in Westminster +Hall, and the two mis-sent prisoners were despatched thither[1112]. At +the trial Sir Thomas Willoughby, serjeant-at-law, appeared against both +Constable and Aske[1113]. Sir Robert pleaded not guilty and maintained +the plea, whatever inducements may have been used to make him withdraw +it. The jury returned a verdict of guilty[1114]. + +Sir Marmaduke Constable the younger was honourably free from the fear or +coldness which kept the relations of the other prisoners from exertions +on their behalf. He was now in London doing what he could for his +father, who wrote to tell him how to use in his favour all the influence +at court which the Constable family possessed. Sir Robert had hopes of +obtaining the intercession of Lord Beauchamp, the Earl of Rutland, and +the Queen, to whom he was distantly related. If all were in vain he +charged his son to see that his debts were paid[1115]. Sir Robert +petitioned Cromwell, not for his life, but for the payment of these +debts. He had no money himself; it had all been spent during his +imprisonment, for prisoners had to maintain themselves in the Tower, as +the government allowance went into the Lieutenant’s pocket. Four +gentlemen had lately been Sir Robert’s sureties for a payment to the +King, and he particularly desired that they should not be allowed to +lose by their bond; “Alas, that these poor gentlemen that were so lately +bound for me and never had profit by me should be undone!”[1116] The +matter weighed upon his mind, and before his death he sent in another +list of his debts[1117]. + +Robert Aske went up to London on 24 March[1118]. He knew that he was +going into danger, and left a horse at Buntingford in order that he +might send back a message as to how he fared[1119]. It need hardly be +explained that this cannot have been with any idea of a fresh rising, as +all the other leaders came up to London at the same time; it was simply +a private means of communication with his friends. On 7 April 1537 he +was arrested and committed to the Tower[1120]. He was repeatedly +examined and both the interrogatories and the replies have fortunately +been preserved[1121]. It is easy to see why this happened. Darcy’s and +Constable’s examinations can have been only of personal interest, but +Aske’s were of real value to the government. They describe the state of +the north and the whole course of the rebellion as seen by a very +thoughtful and able man. In writing his long, careful answers to the +interrogatories Aske perhaps cherished to the last a desperate hope that +he might do some good to his country. His cause had failed, his life was +forfeit, but his words might still be carried to the King’s ear and +might have some effect. His most elaborate replies were begun on 11 +April, almost immediately after his arrest and imprisonment, and were +continued on the 15th. His next set, undated, but written later, +concluded with a partly illegible petition to his examiners: + + “I most humbly beseech you all to be so good unto me ... measures or + by your favor to my lord privey ... yt mr ... tenant myght discherg my + comyns to myn hostes as ... might know ... whether I might send for my + rentes or fees or not without any ... disples ... to any man for onles + the kinges highnes and my lord privey seall be mercifull and gracius + unto me.... I am not able to lyf for non of my frendes will not do + nothing for me, and I have ned to have a payre of hous a dublet of + fusthean a shirt for I have but one shirt her and a pare of showes I + beseech you hertely that I may know your mynd herin and how I shalbe + ordered yt I may trust to the same for the luf of god.”[1122] + +No attention was paid to this pitiful appeal. On 11 May Aske was +examined for the last time by Dr Legh and John ap Rice. At the end of +his replies is another petition: + + “Good mr doctor I beseech you to send me mony and my stuf as a shirt a + paire of hous a dublite and a paire of shown for nether I have mony + nor ger to were as ye sawe yourself for the reverence of god send me + the same or els I know not how to do nor lyf and that mr pollerd be + remembred for the same.”[1123] + +Aske had now been more than a month in the Tower without the common +necessities of life. He remained there about two months longer, and some +sort of allowance must have been made to him, as the King wanted him to +be kept alive for the royal purposes. + +There was one charge against Aske which, if it could have been proved, +would have warranted his condemnation, but it was not discovered until +after his execution and was never properly investigated. On 2 August +1537 the Bishop of Rochester informed Cromwell that he had arrested at +Bromley a priest called Matthew Fisher, who confessed that he had fled +from the north at Whitsuntide. This priest stated that on Midlent +Sunday, 11 March 1536–7, the captains of “his country” had received +letters from Aske which ordered them to rise again, and 400 men had +mustered, he himself being among them. The Bishop added that he believed +there were other fugitives in his diocese who had fled from the north +when Aske was arrested[1124]. There seems to be no foundation for this +vague story. The Bishop never mentioned the name of Fisher’s “country,” +but it is certain that in Midlent Aske was riding in Norfolk’s train +under close surveillance[1125]. The reports from the north on and after +11 March are full, and not a word is said of any stirring[1126], while +the royal lieutenants were so anxiously watchful that it was impossible +for 400 men to muster without some report reaching one of them. The +Bishop, who may not have been very well informed about northern affairs, +probably misunderstood Fisher, who was perhaps concerned in the +Cumberland or the Richmond rising; or possibly Fisher was one of the +half-insane informers who appear from time to time. + +Apart from this, the evidence against Aske is the same which has been +repeated with wearisome regularity in the cases of Darcy and Constable. +There is a certain probability that Aske knew about the intended +rebellion before it broke out, but there was no proof of this +foreknowledge then and there is none now. Aske had taken a small part in +the Lincolnshire rebellion, but for that the King had expressly pardoned +him[1127]. It was objected against him that during the insurrection he +made himself the chief rebel and that at the same time he had “a proud +and traitorous heart,”[1128] but for this also the King had pardoned +him. + +By Norfolk’s advice Aske was questioned as to what had become of his +money, “for he received no small sums in these countries of abbots, +priors and others during the insurrection.”[1129] It was highly +characteristic that Norfolk should imagine Aske to have been quietly +feathering his own nest by extortions from the religious houses which he +was nominally defending, but an insurrection is a costly affair and Aske +had spent all the money he could obtain as fast as he received it on +necessary expenses. He had made a declaration of the spoils that he had +shared in when he was at Court, and the King was then “gracious to him +therein.”[1130] + +As Aske’s replies are preserved, some of the evidence which was brought +against both himself and Darcy is discredited. He had received no +message from Darcy on going up to London for the first time[1131], and +he had informed Norfolk of Levening’s petition[1132]. Like Constable he +was charged with an attempt to secure the liberation of Hallam and of +Bigod’s messengers[1133], and with bidding the commons stay only till +the Duke of Norfolk’s coming[1134]. + +The chief point against him, as against the others, was that in the +middle of January he still expected that there would be a parliament, +convocation and a general pardon; thereby showing that if his +“unreasonable requests” were not granted, he would “revive his traitor’s +heart.”[1135] He had written to Darcy on 8 January 1536–7 that the King +had granted free election of knights and burgesses, and free speech in +convocation. He concluded, “Trusting your Lordship shall perceive I have +done my duty as well to the King’s grace, under his favour, as also to +my country, and have played my part, and thereby I trust all England +shall rejoice.” This was held to prove that “he continues in his +traitor’s heart and rejoices in his treasons, and it is to be noted that +he, by writing of the same letter, committeth a new treason.”[1136] He +also committed a new treason by saying to the commons “your reasonable +petitions shall be ordered in parliament.”[1137] + +Although it was plainly treason that Aske should believe the King’s +promise, it was also treason to write that “it was reported the King +would not be as good as he promised concerning the church lands.”[1138] +This lost letter of Aske’s has already been discussed[1139]. + +These accusations were based chiefly on the papers which had been seized +at Aske’s lodgings in London when he was arrested[1140]. He does not +seem to have kept copies of the letters which he wrote, except in the +case of one manifesto[1141]. There are only thirteen letters preserved +which were written to him and of these seven are copies which were in +the possession of other people[1142]. The remaining six must have been +found in his rooms[1143]. The leader of a prolonged insurrection must +have had many more documents than this meagre number. When he was +interrogated about them his reply was, “To his remembrance they [the +papers] be in his chamber in his brother’s house and in the chamber in +Wressell Castle where he lay; albeit he thinks there be few at Wressell, +but they be all in his said chamber or else in some other place in his +brother’s house, where his servants left them. Also he thinks there be +some in a little coffer which his niece keeps, which is plated with +silver [?] ... there unlocked in his brother’s house at Aughton.... Also +there be bills of complaint betwixt party and party during that time in +a little trussing coffer in his said niece’s chamber, albeit to his +remembrance they be but of small effect touching any article of the +petitions or requirements, and if he can remember there be any writings +in any other place, he shall always declare the same as it cometh to his +remembrance.”[1144] + +With these ample directions Norfolk caused the papers at Aughton to be +seized, but a certain mystery envelopes their fate. On the day of the +trial, 17 May, Cromwell wrote to Norfolk for the papers, which he had +expected to receive long before. Norfolk’s reply was curiously +shuffling. He expressed deep regret that they had not been sent earlier. +He had devoted all one night to reading them, with two helpers, and he +had believed that they were sent up to London long ago. The bearer of +the letter would explain how they had been forgotten. Amid all these +apologies Norfolk never said that he was now sending or that he would +send the papers[1145]. They have never been discovered, and it is +probable that they never left the north. A great many people there must +have been interested in their suppression, and Norfolk may have been +bribed to destroy them, or they may even have been stolen. In any case +they certainly were not produced at the trial. + +Aske, like Constable, pleaded not guilty; both were found guilty and +condemned to death[1146]. + +The other prisoners, James Cockerell, quondam Prior of Guisborough, +Nicholas Tempest of Bashall, William Wood, Prior of Bridlington, John +Pickering of Lythe, clerk, John Pickering of Bridlington, friar, Adam +Sedbar, Abbot of Jervaux, and William Thirsk, quondam Abbot of +Fountains, were brought up for trial on the same indictment, but were +remanded until the next day, Thursday 17 May[1147]. + +James Cockerell, the quondam Prior of Guisborough, was arrested shortly +after Easter by Sir Ralph Evers[1148], and was on his way up to London +as a prisoner on 19 April[1149]. + +The case against him was, first, that about Martinmas Sir Francis Bigod +had attempted to restore him to his house[1150]; this was covered by the +pardon. + +Second, he had read and praised Sir Francis’ book about the royal +supremacy since the pardon. He confessed that he had read the book, but +denied that he had praised it[1151]. + +Third, he had heard Sir Francis throw doubts upon the King’s +pardon[1152]. + +The only witness against him who is mentioned was Sir Francis Bigod; the +prosecution was conducted by John Baker, the attorney-general[1153]. +Cockerell pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty by the jury[1154]. +Under the new law of treason the fact that he listened to Sir Francis’ +book without arresting the author was sufficient to constitute his +guilt. + +Orders were sent to Norfolk for the arrest of Nicholas Tempest, to which +he replied on 31 March that if Tempest were summoned to London he would +go without hesitation, as he was in no fear[1155]. Accordingly he was +summoned, together with Sir Stephen Hamerton and the Prior of +Bridlington, on 7 April[1156]. It was no wonder that he went without +fear, as the sole charge against him was that he had been mentioned in +the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication to Sir Thomas Percy, which even the +prosecution admitted was “no apparent matter against” him[1157]. It was +stated in general terms that he was a “principal doer in the second +insurrection,” but of this there was absolutely no evidence[1158]. He +was accused of maintaining the Abbot of Sawley, and in particular it was +said that he had sent provisions to the monastery, but this was during +the first insurrection and ought to have been covered by the +pardon[1159]. William Whorwood, the solicitor-general, appeared against +him at the trial[1160]. Tempest pleaded not guilty, but was +condemned[1161]. It is probable that he owed his death to the feud +between his family and the Savilles. Sir Henry Saville had been loyal +during the insurrection, and he was now reaping his reward. He had the +ear of the Government, and was able to dispose of his enemies who had +joined the rebels[1162]. There does not appear to have been any other +reason for Nicholas Tempest’s death, as he was both innocent and +inconspicuous. + +William Wood, the Prior of Bridlington, came unsuspiciously up to London +with Nicholas Tempest. There was, however, a little more evidence +against him than against his companion. He was accused of giving aid to +Lumley during his occupation of Scarborough in the second insurrection. +The Prior’s defence was that on hearing the first news of the rising he +had warned Matthew Boynton; that he agreed with the neighbouring +gentlemen to defend Bridlington against the rebels, that he had called +out his own men for this purpose, and that he had endeavoured to prevent +them from joining the rebels[1163]. Matthew Boynton did not altogether +bear out this story. He said that he had sent to the Prior for help to +take Bigod and that the Prior had refused it to him. The Prior replied +that he had needed all his men for his own protection[1164]. + +The Prior’s chief offence had been committed during the Pilgrimage. He +had read and praised Friar Pickering’s rhyme beginning “O faithful +people,” and had given money to the insurgents[1165]. The King was +exceedingly sensitive to ballad criticism, and the Prior’s conduct +during Bigod’s rising was sufficiently suspicious to give an excuse for +bringing him to the scaffold. The solicitor-general conducted the case +against the Prior[1166], who pleaded not guilty, but was +condemned[1167]. + +John Pickering of Pickering Lythe, clerk, seems to have been arrested +solely because he was Sir Francis Bigod’s chaplain[1168]. He was +imprisoned in the Marshalsea, where on 2 June he made a deposition +against the Bulmers, although they had been executed the week +before[1169]. No evidence against him has been preserved. He pleaded not +guilty, and was condemned[1170], but eventually he was pardoned[1171]. + +Friar John Pickering, his namesake, was a prominent Pilgrim, and the +author of the popular rhyme just referred to. He had attended the +council of divines at Pontefract, and had argued against the royal +supremacy[1172]. From the first it was known that he had taken part in +Bigod’s insurrection, and the King ordered his arrest on 22 +February[1173]. For a short while he evaded pursuit[1174], but he was +captured and despatched to London before 22 March[1175]. He confessed to +carrying messages from Bigod to Hallam, and to informing Bigod about the +state of Durham[1176]. In his case, at any rate, there was no +miscarriage of justice. He had worked for his cause until the last, and +had failed. + +Adam Sedbar, the Abbot of Jervaux, was arrested early in March[1177] and +sent up to the Tower, where his name may still be seen inscribed on the +wall. He was not a popular landlord, and had taken part in the +Pilgrimage to some extent against his will. He was examined twice, first +on 25 April and again on 24 May, just before his execution. He +maintained his innocence to the last, and declared that the insurrection +had little to do with religion, but was the work of the discontented +commons[1178]. + +The case against him was as follows:— + + +(1) About Christmas he had sent a servant into Lincolnshire to report on +the state of the country. The servant brought back word that the +Lincolnshire men were “busily hanged,” and on this news the Abbot began +to plot a new insurrection. + +(2) He gave money to Ninian Staveley and others for the purpose of +inducing them to rebel. + +(3) He ordered Staveley to send a message to Sir Thomas Percy that he +must come forward to help the Abbot in the new rising. + +(4) When the men of Richmondshire rose, the Abbot sent his servants to +join them, and promised them further help[1179]. + + +The Abbot’s defence was:— + + +(1) He had sent the servant to Lincolnshire only to collect the rents +belonging to the Abbey and for no other purpose. + +(2) He had ordered money to be given to Staveley and his companion by +way of a tip, because they had been trying to find some lost sheep +belonging to the Abbey. + +(3) He had never sent or ordered a message to Sir Thomas Percy. + +(4) He knew nothing about the Richmondshire insurrection until the +commons surrounded the Abbey and insisted upon carrying off his +servants. As soon as they had gone, the Abbot fled to Bolton Castle, +where he remained with Lord Scrope until the tumult was over[1180]. + + +Staveley and Middleton, the witnesses against the Abbot, were men of bad +character, and on the whole it is probable that the Abbot’s defence was +true and that his only crime was his office. + +William Thirsk, the quondam Abbot of Fountains, lived at Jervaux, and +was involved in the same charges as Sedbar[1181]. His defence was the +same and was equally sound. Both were found guilty and condemned to +death[1182]. + +On Friday 25 May 1537 Sir John Bulmer, Sir Stephen Hamerton, Nicholas +Tempest, James Cockerell, the quondam Prior of Guisborough, William +Thirsk, the quondam Abbot of Fountains, and Pickering were executed at +Tyburn. Bulmer and Hamerton enjoyed the privilege of their knighthood +and “were but hanged and headed.” The others suffered the full penalty +of the law. Their heads were set on London Bridge and the gates of +London[1183]. + +These executions had, on the whole, a settling effect on the country. +The reformers were delighted. The large and powerful class who desired +peace above everything were reassured. Most of the conservatives were +frightened into silence. But one Yorkshire man called William Moke, who +was present at the executions, felt such indignation that when he heard +Sir Richard Tempest and Thomas Grice were summoned to London he set out +at once to warn them not to come. He foolishly mentioned his object at +an inn in Lincolnshire, and as innkeepers were among the best of +Cromwell’s sources of information, Moke was at once arrested and brought +back to London[1184]. + +On the day when Sir John Bulmer died, 25 May, another execution took +place. Lady Bulmer, or Margaret Cheyne as she was called, was drawn +after the other prisoners from the Tower to Smithfield and there burnt. +Burning was the ancient penalty for treason in the case of a woman, but +it was seldom exacted. The poor women in Somersetshire, for instance, +suffered the same fate as the men. The death of Margaret caused some +sensation at the time. There is a touch of pathos even in the dry record +of Wriothesley’s Chronicle; she was burnt, he says, “according to her +judgment, God pardon her soul, being the Friday in Whitsun week: she was +a very fair creature and a beautiful.”[1185] At Thame in Oxfordshire her +fate was discussed on the Sunday before she died. Robert Jons said that +it was a pity she should suffer. John Strebilhill, the informer, +answered, “It is no pity, if she be a traitor to her prince, but that +she should have after her deserving.” This warned Jons to be careful, +and he merely replied, “Let us speak no more of this matter, for men may +be blamed for speaking the truth.”[1186] + +Froude says, “Lady Bulmer seems from the depositions to have deserved as +serious punishment as any woman for the crime of high treason can be +said to have deserved.” The depositions show only that she believed the +commons were ready to rebel again, and that the Duke of Norfolk alone +could prevent the new rebellion. In addition to this she kept her +husband’s secrets and tried to save his life. She committed no overt act +of treason; her offences were merely words and silence. The reason for +her execution does not lie in the heinous nature of her offence, but +Henry was not gratuitously cruel, and her punishment had an object. It +was intended as an example to others. There can be no doubt that many +women were ardent supporters of the Pilgrimage. Lady Hussey and the +dowager Countess of Northumberland were both more guilty than Lady +Bulmer. Other names have occurred from time to time, Mistress Stapleton, +old Sir Marmaduke Constable’s wife, who sheltered Levening[1187], and +young Lady Evers. But these were all ladies of blameless character and +of respectable, sometimes powerful, families. Henry knew that in the +excited state of public opinion it would be dangerous to meddle with +them. His reign was not by any means an age of chivalry, but there still +remained a good deal of the old tribal feeling about women, that they +were the most valuable possessions of the clan, and that if any +stranger, even the King, touched them all the men of the clan were +disgraced. An illustration of this occurred in Scotland during the same +year (1537). James V brought to trial, condemned, and burnt Lady Glamis +on a charge of high treason[1188]. She was a lady of great family and +James brought upon himself and his descendants a feud which lasted for +more than sixty years[1189]. + +James’ uncle Henry VIII was more politic. He selected as the +demonstration of his object-lesson to husbands, which should teach them +to distrust their wives, and to wives, which should teach them to dread +their husbands’ confidence, a woman of no family and irregular life, +dependent on the head of a falling house. This insignificance, which +might have saved a man, was in her case an additional danger. She had no +avenger but her baby son, and we only hear of one friendly voice raised +to pity her death. The King’s object-lesson was most satisfactorily +accomplished. + +On Saturday 2 June 1537 Sir Thomas Percy, Sir Francis Bigod, George +Lumley, Adam Sedbar the Abbot of Jervaux, and William Wood the Prior of +Bridlington were executed at Tyburn. Sir Thomas Percy was beheaded, and +was buried at the church of the Crutched Friars on Tower Hill[1190]; the +others suffered the full penalty and their heads were exposed on London +Bridge and elsewhere[1191]. + +Darcy, Hussey, Aske and Constable were still in the Tower, but with +these exceptions the end of the treason trials and executions had been +reached. + +It is customary at this point to comment on the stolid indifference of +the general public to such events, but a study of contemporary +depositions shows that this placidity has been rather over-rated. Short +of another insurrection, there was no way in which sympathy could be +expressed with the sufferers; the lightest words laid a man at the mercy +of any chance informer. Yet a perceptible murmur followed the death of +the northern men. Thomas Strangways, Thomas Neville, William Moke, +Robert Jons, Lord Delaware, Lord Cobham and Lord Montague each in his +way uttered a protest which must have voiced the feelings of many others +who dared not speak or who escaped detection. The feeling of Scotland +was probably expressed by the Bishop of Aberdeen. “Ye have put down many +good Christian men,” he said to an English pursuivant, and when the +latter protested, added, “ye that are poor men are good, but the heads +are the worst.”[1192] The Spanish Chronicler, who seems to have come to +England a few years later and depended for his information entirely on +hearsay, never even mentions the second insurrection. His story is that +the people were pacified by the King’s promises, that as soon as there +was no danger of any further rising Aske was persuaded by fair words to +reveal the names of those who had helped him, and that the King then +threw off the mask and caused all the leaders to be executed[1193]. + +The attitude of the King’s apologists is also very significant. Knowing +that Henry’s conduct was always severely criticised in France, Cromwell +wrote to Sir Thomas Wyatt, the English ambassador there, that he must +affirm that, although it was true Darcy and the others had been +pardoned, yet they had all most ungratefully offended again and were +justly sentenced to death. If it had not been for their second treason, +the King would never have remembered their former crime[1194]. In 1546 +William Thomas wrote a panegyric of Henry VIII in the form of a dialogue +between an Englishman and an Italian. The Italian objects against Henry, +“After the Insurrection in the North, when he had pardoned the first +rebellers against him, contrary unto his promise did he not cause a +number of the most noble of them, by divers torments to be put to +death?” Thomas of course makes the usual answer, that they had offended +a second time[1195]; but the objection shows that the executions were +not accepted as just, and were not forgotten, or Thomas would have had +no occasion to allude to them. Finally the Yorkshire Chronicler, Wilfred +Holme, begins by stating that the pardon was not universal:— + + “And to the Duke of Norfolk’s intercession + There was granted a pardon and that general, + From Don to Tweed for their whole transgression + Of all contempts and trespasses as well as things vital + _Nine_ only reserved.” + +But he presently adds that later these nine were also pardoned at +Norfolk’s intercession[1196]. + +Considering the conditions of the period it may be said that this was +quite a powerful body of criticism to be directed against Henry. He was +exceedingly sensitive to public opinion, and although he had still a +number of prisoners on his hands the executions ceased. There was a +simpler way of disposing of the prisoners which attracted less +attention. The plague was raging in London, and a few months in one of +the prisons were enough to prevent anyone obnoxious to the King from +troubling his Majesty again. + +Sir Richard Tempest’s case illustrates this point. On 11 March 1536–7 +the Earl of Sussex reported to Norfolk that Sir Richard “was neither +good first nor last.”[1197] He was accused of having called out the men +of Halifax before 10 October 1536[1198], which was the date of the +beginning of the insurrection for the purposes of the pardon. A letter +of his to Sir George Darcy was discovered in which he declared that he +would take Lord Darcy’s part against any lord in England[1199]. Sir +Richard Tempest was summoned to appear in London during Trinity term to +answer these charges, or others[1200]. William Moke’s warning never +reached him[1201], and on 2 June 1537 Norfolk thanked Cromwell for +telling him that the King “did not much favour” Sir Richard[1202]. +Tempest came up to London and was thrown into the Fleet. He petitioned +Cromwell to be released on bail, because he was in jeopardy of his life, +“the weather is so hot and contagious and the plague so sore in the +city.”[1203] His petition was disregarded and on 25 August he died. “He +willed his heart to be taken out of his body and carried to his own +country, to be buried in the place he had prepared for his corpse and +his wife’s to lie in.”[1204] + +Some prisoners fared better than this. William Aclom’s name is mentioned +among those who were accused of treason[1205], but he was not included +in the indictment. Leonard Beckwith summoned him before the Court of +Star Chamber for robberies committed during the insurrection[1206] and +Aclom was imprisoned in the Fleet until his case should be tried. He +made himself comfortable there by marrying the sister of the keeper, +with the result that Beckwith complained Aclom had “a very small +imprisonment.”[1207] + +Aclom’s case was exceptional and several of the other prisoners must +have died. Thomas Strangways was sick at the time of his arrest, and +did not long survive[1208]. Robert Thompson the vicar of +Brough-under-Stainmoor was arrested before 24 February. Norfolk +proposed that he should be tried and executed at Carlisle, although +there was no proof that he had taken any part in the second +insurrection, except that he had once prayed for the Pope[1209]. +Thompson was sent up to London on 8 March[1210], and was examined in +the Tower on 20 March[1211]. He was never brought to trial, but from +the Tower he was transferred to the King’s Bench Prison where he found +“his body ... what with years, what with corrupt and stinking smells, +what with cold and hunger, so sore pricked” that he earnestly +petitioned Cromwell for mercy. The petition is endorsed “no” and the +vicar was left to die in his miserable prison[1212]. Sir Ingram Percy +was imprisoned in the Tower at the same time as his brother Sir +Thomas. There was no evidence of any kind that he had offended since +the pardon, but he was kept a prisoner in the Tower for about a year. +There he carved his name and motto + + “Ingram Percy. Sara fidele.” [_I will be faithful._] + +He was probably released in November 1538[1213], when there was a rumour +that he had fled to Scotland, but this was unfounded. His health must +have been completely broken, for he never returned to the north and died +in a few months. His will, dated 7 June 1538, was proved at Canterbury +on 21 March 1538–9[1214]. + +The fate of the other prisoners is unknown. Some must have saved +themselves by turning King’s evidence, as for instance Staynhus and +Staveley. Richard Bowier did so well in this respect that although in +March Norfolk had called him “as naughty a knave as any,”[1215] in the +summer he was petitioning Cromwell for a grant of monastic lands[1216]. +There were others who probably shared the fate of Robert Thompson in +prison. A case was carefully made out against William Collins, the +bailiff of Kendal, who was certainly guilty[1217]. He was examined in +the Tower on 12 April 1537[1218], but after that nothing more is heard +of him, saving that in a list of Cromwell’s memoranda, probably drawn up +in July 1537, there occurs the item, “for Collins, bailiff of +Kendal.”[1219] + +It remains, in Henry’s words, “to knit up this tragedy,” and to conclude +with the fate of the two principals, Sir Robert Constable and Robert +Aske. They remained in the Tower after the trial on 16 May for more than +a month. The King made up his mind on 12 June that they should be +executed in the north[1220]; Constable, who had held Hull, was to be +hanged there in chains, and Aske was to be executed at York “where he +was in his greatest and most frantic glory.” It was decided that they +should be sent with Lord Hussey to Lincolnshire, in order that their +appearance might be a warning to the rebellious people there[1221]. On +28 June the three prisoners left the Tower under the escort of Sir +Thomas Wentworth[1222]. At Huntingdon they were delivered to Sir William +Parr, who conveyed them to Lincoln, where Hussey was handed over to the +Duke of Suffolk. Parr conveyed Constable and Aske to Hull, where they +were transferred to the custody of the Duke of Norfolk[1223]. + +Sir Robert Constable was kept in Hull until the next market day, in +order that his end should have all possible publicity. He was asked +whether his written confession contained all that he knew about the +insurrection. He answered that he had omitted some “naughty words and +high cracks which my lord Darcy had blown out,” because he did not wish +to repeat them while Darcy was alive. “He was in doubt whether he had +offended God in receiving the Sacrament concealing this”; but now he was +able to free his mind, “saying that they could hurt no man now my lord +Darcy was dead.”[1224] + +On Friday 6 July 1537 Sir Robert Constable was brought out to the +Beverley Gate for execution. The government chaplain could not bring him +to confess that he had committed treason since the pardon, “howbeit his +open confession was right good.” The passivity with which prisoners +submitted to death in Tudor times is somewhat repugnant to modern ideas. +When a man knows that his cause has been overthrown by treachery and his +life forfeited by the most cruel injustice, we feel that he ought to +make some protest at his death, that his warfare on behalf of right and +justice, as he conceives it, ought to be carried on up to the very last +breath. Any submission appears like a compromise with evil. In Henry +VIII’s reign public opinion was very different. In the first place, as +we have seen, the officials who conducted the execution took summary +measures to prevent the prisoner from saying anything in his own +justification. In the second place an execution was a public amusement, +and the people did not want to be made uncomfortable by it. They guarded +against mental uneasiness in a very simple manner. If the prisoner +submitted to his sentence and acknowledged that he had received a fair +trial, they applauded him. There was no need to trouble about a man who +was quite satisfied with his own fate. If, on the other hand, he did by +any chance protest, they said that he must be a bad man because he died +“uncharitably”; therefore he must have deserved his fate, and again +there was no need to pity him. The prisoner had usually no power to +resist the weight of public opinion, broken as he was in body by most +rigorous imprisonment, and in spirit by his long conflict with the most +paralysing human vices, injustice, cruelty and selfishness. He was worn +out— + + “Let the long contention cease, + Geese are swans and swans are geese. + Let them have it as they will, + Thou art tired, best be still.” + +There is something noble in this quiet resignation,—something which +makes the protests of the modern martyr sound petty and shrill. + +In the strength of this resignation died Sir Robert Constable. Norfolk +reported that his body “doth hang above the highest gate of the town, so +trimmed in chains ... that I think his bones will hang there this +hundred year.”[1225] The Beverley Gate was the scene of Hallam’s +sacrifice, when he turned his back on safety and chose to share the fate +of his comrades. It was fitting that Sir Robert should die there, he who +worthily fulfilled his motto: + + “As to the ship is anchor and cable, + So to thy friend be thou, Constable.”[1226] + +A very different scene of friendship was enacted at his execution. +Norfolk entered into conversation with Sir William Parr, saying that he +was as much bound to Cromwell as ever nobleman could be to another. Parr +replied that he had heard and partly knew how willing Cromwell was to +further Norfolk’s interests. The Duke exclaimed, “Sir William, no man +can report more than I know already, for I have found such assured +goodness in him to me, that I never proved the like in any friend +before; and therefore myself and all mine shall be, as long as I live, +as ready to do him pleasure as any kinsman he hath.” Parr, as was +expected of him, repeated all this to Cromwell[1227]. Such were the +professions of the man who afterwards arrested Cromwell in the Council +Chamber and “snatched off the order of St George which he wore in his +neck.”[1228] + +As the plague was raging in Hull, Norfolk left the town immediately +after the execution, and conveyed Aske to York, where he was to suffer +on the next market day[1229]. + +Ever since he had assumed his perilous office as grand captain of the +Pilgrimage, Aske had been haunted by the nightmare of an execution for +treason, from which he had not even the protection of knighthood. His +was not that unhealthy type of mind which despises life and seeks for +death in any form. He had none of the hysterical enthusiasm which +carries some martyrs through their sufferings in a state of happy +insensibility. He saw that the death which threatened him was horrible +and shameful, but he had the supreme courage to face it, not because he +drugged himself with the thought of future bliss, but because it was +necessary for the sake of his cause. + +Aske was prepared to suffer martyrdom if it must be so, but he did not +pretend to desire it. During the rebellion he was heard to say that “he +had rather die in the field than be judged like a traitor.”[1230] On his +last journey up to London he was accompanied by Robert Wall his foster +brother and constant companion. When Wall heard of Aske’s arrest, he +cast himself upon his bed, and cried, “Oh my master! Oh my master! They +will draw him and hang him and quarter him.” A few days afterwards the +faithful servant died of sorrow[1231]. + +After his trial Aske sent a petition to the King, and another to an +unnamed lord, probably Cromwell. He begged that his debts might be paid, +and that his lands in Hampshire might revert to the right heirs, as he +held them only for life. He solemnly declared that none of his kinsmen +took any part in the insurrection, and begged that the King would be +gracious to them, and not visit his offences upon them. He requested +that “other men’s evidences,” which had been in his charge at Gray’s Inn +and were seized with his papers, might be restored to the rightful +owners. Finally he begged that his sentence might be commuted to +perpetual imprisonment “or else let me be full dead ere I be +dismembered.”[1232] On this point the King showed mercy. Aske was +allowed to hang “until he died.”[1233] + +The day appointed for Aske’s execution was Thursday 12 July, which was +market day in York[1234]. Richard Coren, the government chaplain, was +with him on the last morning, and received from him a list of the spoils +which he had taken and not restored; he begged they might be discharged +by the King. As with Constable, the chaplain tried hard to draw fresh +details of the rising out of him, and noted, with some annoyance, that +both men “thought a religion to keep secret between God and them certain +things rather than open their whole stomach; from the which opinion I +could not abduce them.” The secret which the chaplain was so anxious to +discover must have been the identity of the Pilgrims’ friends in the +south. The evidence that they had such friends has already been +discussed[1235]. When interrogated on the subject in the Tower Aske +replied, “the common report of all that travelled in the south parts was +then that if the north parts would come forwards that the countries as +they came would take their part and join with them, ... he never +received letter nor special message with any promise of help from the +South. The gentlemen of Yorkshire adjoining Lincolnshire told him that +if any power had come into Lincolnshire before the agreement at +Doncaster the commons of Lincolnshire would have taken their part. By +such reports the said Aske knew the minds of the countries and none +otherwise.”[1236] When this statement is compared with Aske’s letter to +Darcy in November 1536[1237], it is evident that he was lying to his +examiners. He probably confessed the falsehood to the chaplain, but +still refused to betray the names of his allies. He stated, out of +confession, that Darcy had told him during the Pilgrimage of his +communications with the Imperial ambassador in 1535, which though +suspected had not been known to the government before, and he also +mentioned Darcy’s intention of sending to Flanders, which had been +discovered during the trial. + +Two things troubled Aske because they had “somewhat aggrieved” him. One +was a speech of Cromwell’s, who “spake a sore word and affirmed it with +a stomach,” that all the northern men were but traitors. The other was +the fact that Cromwell had several times promised him a pardon, and the +King had given him a token of pardon for confessing the truth, yet he +was now to die. He said that he had kept these matters secret, and of +course the chaplain, in his report to Cromwell, promised never to repeat +them. Another secret which Aske had learnt was that Cromwell “did not +bear so great a favour to my lord of Norfolk as he thought he +did.”[1238] These blunt statements of facts that no one in diplomatic +circles ever mentioned caused a slight flutter among those concerned. +Norfolk and Cromwell were obliged to exchange more assurances of +perpetual amity[1239] and the English ambassador in Brussels wrote on 22 +January 1539–40 that Chapuys “professeth with great oaths the King’s +good service and true intent in the place he was in, wherein he showed +me of the accusation that Aske had made against him, and of his +innocence therein.”[1240] + +After his confession Aske was brought out of the prison and openly +confessed he had offended God, the King, and the world. “God he had +offended in breaking of his commandments, many ways; the King’s Majesty, +he said, he had greatly offended in breaking his laws whereunto every +true subject is bounden by the commandment of God, as he did openly +affirm, and the world he had offended, for so much as he was the +occasion that many one had lost their lives, lands and goods. After this +he declared openly that the King’s Highness was so gracious lord unto +all his subjects in these parts that no man should be troubled for any +offence comprised within the compass of his gracious pardon.” He was +then laid upon a hurdle and drawn through the main streets of York, +“desiring the people ever, as he passed by, to pray for him.” + +On reaching the Clifford Tower, Aske was made to repeat his confession, +and then taken into the Tower to await the coming of the Duke[1241]. All +the principal gentlemen of the West Marches had been summoned to attend +the execution, and others of Yorkshire including Aske’s brother John, +who afterwards had a severe illness[1242]. + +When Norfolk arrived he pronounced an exhortation[1243]. Aske was +brought out upon the scaffold on the top of the tower, and there +repeated his confession, “asking divers times the King’s Highness’ +forgiveness, my Lord Chancellor, my Lord of Norfolk, my Lord Privy Seal, +my Lord of Sussex and all the world, and thus, after certain orisons, +commended his soul to God.”[1244] So died Robert Aske, begging the +forgiveness of the men who had done him to death. “And all the trumpets +sounded for him on the other side.” + +NOTE TO CHAPTER XX + + Note A. There are three long papers (L. and P. XII (1), 847, 848, 849) + filled with notes on the evidence against Darcy and Aske. We have + taken these to be notes for the prosecution, showing the material for + the various charges brought against the prisoners. It has been + suggested that our view is mistaken, and that these are really notes + for the interrogation of the prisoners, but this seems improbable for + the following reasons:— + + (1) Against some of the items a note is made that a question is to be + asked about that particular point, but if they were all intended for + questions, there would be no reason to mark a few in this way. So far + as the notes were used as interrogatories, it was chiefly in the + matter of the dates of various letters mentioned in them, such dates + being added in the margin. + + (2) Against some of the items are written such comments as “this shows + him a traitor,” “thereby he committed a new treason.” There could be + no reason for such notes on a mere list of questions. + + For these reasons therefore we take the notes to be the general + outline of the case for the crown against Darcy and Aske. + + + + + CHAPTER XXI + THE COUNCIL OF THE NORTH + + +There is documentary evidence that 185 persons were executed in the +north for their share in the risings between October 1536 and March +1537, and that 31 were executed in the south, making a total of 216. In +addition to this there is reason to believe that some executions took +place of which no record remains, and there were a certain number of +prisoners who died in prison without trial. The slaughter at the assault +on Carlisle was considerable, but there is no means of discovering how +many fell there, as the only number mentioned, 700, seems to be much too +great. Making allowance for these omissions, however, the death-roll, +although much longer than historians have acknowledged, is short +considering the standard of the period. It is said that 100,000 peasants +were slaughtered in Germany after the revolt of 1525. In comparison with +this Henry’s modest total of little over 200 looks like humanity itself. +If he won the victory by treachery, he is entitled to the praise of +having used it with moderation, although this mercy was forced upon him +by circumstances and was not much to his taste. + +It may be doubted whether this punishment would have been sufficient to +overpower the opposition to Henry’s policy, if the King had not found an +effective ally in the plague. The fatal disease which had raged in the +south during 1536 spread northward in the summer of 1537, and continued +its ravages in the northern counties during the next four or five years. +Men had no time to trouble about the wrongs of the Church with that +terrible spectre at the door. According to the King’s servants it was +the direct work of God on behalf of the King. At any rate it had a great +deal to do with the peaceful close of Henry’s reign. + +The north of England at the beginning of the sixteenth century was the +poorest and most backward part of the kingdom, the part, therefore, +which required most attention and care at the hands of a competent +ruler. So far Henry had not done well by it. He found the north poor, +and he robbed it of the only treasure it possessed in the wealth of the +abbeys. He found it backward, and he nearly destroyed the only +civilising influence at work there, the Church. He found that the people +cherished, among many faults, a few rude virtues, truthfulness, personal +honour, fidelity to family and friends. He made no serious effort to +reform their faults, but he did his best to eradicate their virtues. By +his system of justice oaths were made so common that it was impossible +they should be respected. Treacherous and false witnesses were +encouraged. The brother was forced to condemn the brother, and the wife +was tempted to betray her husband. It was impossible that the gentlemen +should preserve the same standard and feel the same self-respect after +they had been half bribed, half frightened into taking part in the +arrest and condemnation of their kinsmen and friends. In short, the +north was impoverished and degraded by Norfolk and the King. + +Nevertheless Henry VIII was a statesman, and he had long intended to +reform the north. His experimental councils are one sign of this. His +intrigues against the Percys are another. The Pilgrimage of Grace +afforded a very suitable opportunity to put his ideas into practice. By +its means he at last laid hands on the whole of the Percy inheritance, +and destroyed a power which had menaced the throne for two hundred +years. This dangerous power had been delegated to the Earls of +Northumberland in the hope that it would enable them to control the +Borders, but time had proved the folly of the measure. The Percys could +plunge the kingdom in turmoil whenever they chose, but they could not +maintain any appreciable amount of good government on the Borders. At +length Henry VIII destroyed the family by violence and treachery. The +means were bad, but the end was worth attaining, and the King was firmly +determined that no act of his should confer similar power on another +great family, which his son or grandson would in turn be obliged to +destroy. + +Henry had determined to try a new plan of government on the Borders. No +satisfactory way to hold the mosstroopers in check had ever been +devised. The councils were in a perpetual state of reorganisation. The +wardens of the Marches were often in trouble for treason and at other +times pursued spirited blood-feuds among themselves or with the Scots +wardens. It was no wonder that the King took the wardenships into his +own hands and secretly resolved that no nobleman should hold them again. + +The East Marches were offered to the Earl of Westmorland, but he was +allowed to refuse the office[1245], which would not have been the case +if the King had really wanted him. Henry intended that the work should +be done by knights and gentlemen appointed as his deputies and dependent +on his own orders. They were to be assisted by the Council of the +Marches. This body, which had been in existence for a long time, was +composed of all the principal Border gentlemen, and the King decided to +grant them pensions in consideration of the services which he hoped they +would perform. The powers of the council were confined to the Borders; +its members were officials such as Sir Thomas Clifford the captain of +Berwick, Lionel Grey porter of Berwick, and Northumbrian gentlemen such +as the Forsters, the Ogles, the Carrs and the Fenwicks. It was now +proposed to include the headmen of the principal surnames of Tynedale +and Reedsdale, the Charltons, Robsons, Dods, Halls and others. The +presidents of the council were the deputy wardens, and its business was +confined to Scots and English raids, outrages in Tynedale and Reedsdale, +the safe-keeping of Border castles, and dealings with the English spies +who infested the Lowlands of Scotland. + +This council must not be confused with the Council of the North, as it +was a totally distinct body. It was a makeshift means of dealing with +the problem of the Borders. While England and Scotland were hostile, it +was impossible to rule these districts justly and firmly. The reivers +were not to blame for their situation. There is no real moral +distinction between deliberately laying waste a fair country in time of +war, and carrying off a neighbour’s cattle under cover of night, except +that the first is wanton destruction and the second is sometimes a work +of necessity. The mosstrooper naturally lost all respect for the law +which praised and rewarded the first and hanged him for the second. The +King did his best to deal fairly by the Borders. It was not his fault +that all plans failed; or at least it was his fault only in so far as he +stirred up tumult and encouraged the terrible Warden raids which so +often set the Scots fields ablaze just before harvest time. He had let a +lawless genie out of the pot, which he could by no means conjure back +again. + +In January 1536–7 the Earl of Northumberland was dying. He made no +difficulty about the surrender of the wardenships of the East and Middle +Marches into the King’s hands. The younger Percys were soon to be +disposed of in the most definite way possible. There remained the West +Marches, of which the Earl of Cumberland was the warden. On 24 January +the King commanded the Earl to reconcile himself with Lord Dacre. +Shortly afterwards the Privy Council desired the Earl to resign his +office as warden, and announced at the same time that it was the King’s +pleasure to advance him to the Order of the Garter[1246]. + +The King decided to appoint Sir William Evers to the East and Sir John +Widdrington to the Middle Marches as his deputies, with Roger Fenwick as +Keeper of Tynedale and George Fenwick Keeper of Reedsdale[1247]. + +It might have been expected that the King would consult the Duke of +Norfolk before making these appointments, as he was just about to start +for the north. But perhaps he wished to show Norfolk that he was not +entirely trusted. At any rate Sir Anthony Browne set out secretly with +the commissions for the new deputy wardens several days before Norfolk, +and the Duke was much surprised to find himself following in the steps +of a royal messenger about whom he knew nothing[1248]. Norfolk’s +authority was limited also in another way. From the first it had been +determined that he should be accompanied by a council of “personages of +honour, worship and learning,” appointed by the Privy Council[1249]. +Their commission set forth the powers of the council “whose advice the +Duke shall in all things use, and for whose entertainment he shall have +allowance, as in a book, wherein the Duke and every councillor is rated +at a certain ordinary, is contained.” Some of these councillors +accompanied the Duke to the north, the rest were gentlemen already +resident there[1250]. On 14 January “the Earl of Westmorland and Bowes +were sworn of the King’s Council in the North.”[1251] Sir Marmaduke +Constable was vice-president, and William Babthorpe was a +councillor[1252]. + +The Council of the North was thus constituted in 1537, but as yet it had +no independent authority. The members did not even sign Norfolk’s +despatches, and the Duke quoted their advice only when he was suggesting +measures which would be disagreeable to the King[1253]. + +When Norfolk was at Doncaster on 2 February he received from the Privy +Council an explanation of Browne’s errand. Besides the appointment of +the new deputies[1254], he carried letters patent to all the headmen of +Tynedale and Reedsdale granting them fees as the King’s servants[1255]. +At first Norfolk was not opposed to the general outlines of the plan, +but he strongly objected to some of the King’s pensioners. Edward and +Cuthbert Charleton, Henry and Geoffrey Robson, Christopher and David +Milburn, John Hall of Otterburn, and Sandy and Anthony Hall were all +either thieves themselves or maintainers of thieves[1256]. They had been +involved in the murder of two gentlemen. “Light persons will say that +the King is obliged to hire the worst malefactors and overlook their +offences.” Norfolk ventured to send after Sir Anthony Browne the advice +that he should not deliver the patents to these men without further +orders[1257]. + +The Duke was snubbed by the Privy Council for his pains. “The King +marvelled he should be more earnest against retaining such as have been +murderers and thieves than such as have been traitors. These men rather +did good in the late trouble, though they did it for their own lucre, +and if they can be now made good men the King’s money will be well +spent.” To grant them fees was not the same thing as to grant them +pardons; if they were murderers they could still be punished for that. +Norfolk must write at once to Sir Anthony and tell him to carry out his +original orders without modification[1258]. Henry always believed that +the mosstroopers might be turned to good use if he could but manage +them. On the approach of war with Scotland they became a valuable asset. + +Sir Anthony Browne arrived at Berwick on Saturday 3 February. Besides +the delivery of their commissions to the deputy-wardens, he was +instructed to arrange a general pacification, to demand restitution from +Tynedale and Reedsdale for the raids they had made in Northumberland +during the rising, to appoint certain persons to advise the deputies, +and to put Ford Castle into safe-keeping. In addition to these tasks, +some of them not easy, he had still more delicate work to do. He must +warn the Borderers against all breaches of the peace with Scotland; he +must inform Sir Thomas Clifford that the Earl of Cumberland had been +reconciled to Lord Dacre, and he must order Sir Thomas to “cast away his +ancient grudges”; he must persuade the Northumbrian gentlemen “to live +more in the heart of the Marches than they do now”; finally he was not +to leave the north until the two younger Percys were safely in London by +dint of force or strategy, and with them their henchman little John +Heron of Chipchase[1259]. + +Sir Anthony Browne sent for the gentlemen of Northumberland to meet him +at Berwick on Tuesday 6 February. There were some who failed to answer +his summons—Cuthbert and Edward Charleton, Henry Robson, Christopher and +David Milburn, and Sandy Hall—all names on Norfolk’s black list. The +Bishop of Durham, who was making himself very useful, explained that +they were noted freebooters who would not come in “for fear of their +evil deeds;”[1260] the deputy wardens confirmed this opinion[1261]. The +absentees would have received a pleasant surprise if they had plucked up +heart to come; against all likelihood it was gold, not halters, that the +King had sent them. + +All the gentlemen who assembled at Berwick took the new oath to the King +and received their patents. They took “not a little comfort” in being +the King’s servants, and would “think long” until they had earned their +pensions by some deed. The Greys were at feud with the Carrs, the +Forsters and Ogles with the Halls; indeed it is safe to say that there +was not a family in Northumberland without a blood enemy and a sworn +ally. Sir Anthony Browne commanded them in the King’s name to forget +their hatreds, and in the fullness of their new-found loyalty they all +replied that the King should be obeyed in everything, “and each agreed +to set his hand to an instrument.” + +They were heartily agreed on one point. Tynedale and Reedsdale had +spoiled the plains “so sore that many are weary of their lives”; the +reivers must be forced to make restitution, or if that was impossible at +least some revenge must be taken. Sir Anthony Browne promised redress +and sent to the hill graynes to demand pledges for their good +behaviour[1262]. Reedsdale made no difficulty, but sent in seven or +eight of these hostages at once. There was likely to be more trouble +over the Tynedale pledges, and the dalesmen had an excuse for their +lawlessness ready. They said that they would never have “broken” if Sir +Reynold Carnaby had not called upon them in the King’s name to rise +against the rebels of Northumberland. Of course everyone in +Northumberland swore that he had no thoughts against the King and took +up arms only to protect his goods from the reivers[1263]. It is +difficult to discover who was responsible for the raising of the two +dales, the Percy or the Carnaby faction. The Carnabys laid the mustering +of Tynedale to the charge of little John Heron, Sir Thomas Percy’s man, +and supported their story by many circumstantial details[1264]. This +still leaves Reedsdale unaccounted for, and the mosstroopers themselves +said that they rose for Sir Reynold. In the King’s opinion, though they +acted for their own gain, they did more good than harm. He must have +meant by spoiling their neighbours, for they did nothing else. It may +have been that when John Heron raised Tynedale, the Carnabys raised +Reedsdale against him, and that both dales thought it more profitable to +spoil the lowlands than to fight each other. It was in nobody’s interest +to defend the falling house of Percy, and it may be suspected that a +list of spoils nearly as long as those attributed to the Percys might +have been made against the Carnaby faction. + +The members of the Council of the Marches assembled at Berwick. They +were Sir Thomas Clifford, Sir William Evers, Sir John Widdrington, +Robert Collingwood, Lionel Grey, Cuthbert Radcliff and John Horsley. On +14 February they wrote to the King to inform him that it had been +necessary to modify some of the orders brought by Sir Anthony Browne. +First they had requested him not to deliver the King’s letters patent +which granted the keeping of Reedsdale to George Fenwick, because a +change at such an unsettled time would be sure to cause disorder, and +the deputy warden of the Middle Marches, Sir John Widdrington, felt +himself hampered in his duties if Reedsdale were not under his direct +control. + +Further, after much debate, they had determined to advise the King +humbly against enlisting as pensioners in his service Cuthbert and +Edward Charleton. These two men were leaders of the Tynedale thieves. +They had resorted to Sir Thomas Percy during the insurrection. They had +busily devoted themselves to stirring up the disorder so favourable to +the practice of their calling. The feeling was general that in asking +these reivers to assist their natural enemies the wardens, the King was +obeying too implicitly the old saw about catching thieves. Moreover, the +Charletons had not been loyal since the end of the rising. The greater +number of the dalesmen had been ready to take the King’s oath, but the +Charletons had refused to swear to be true to the King, unless they +might make a special reservation in favour of Hexham Priory, which they +had sworn to maintain against all the world, receiving 20 nobles a year +from the canons in guerdon of their allegiance. This is some proof that +the marchman’s respect for his oath was more than a chivalrous fiction +of the Border minstrels. + +The Charletons would not agree to send in pledges for restitution of the +cattle and gear they had plundered. They had plenty of friends on the +Marches, and being in league with the reivers of Liddesdale, Jedworth +Forest, Harlaw Woods and Esk Water, they could defy the King’s officers +with impunity. The Council of the Marches suggested that it would be +better to catch and hang them than to enrich them with the nation’s +gold. They were so formidable that it would take a force of 300 men to +penetrate Tynedale and run them to earth. + +Finally the King had commanded that John Heron of Chipchase should be +arrested and sent up to London by water; but the Council of the Marches +thought that his arrest would alarm the Reedsdale men, who were so far +fairly quiet, and found it expedient merely to bind him over for 200 +marks to appear before the King when summoned[1265]. + +Some of these arrangements did not please Henry. From a fragment of a +despatch to the Council of the Marches, it appears that he marvelled at +the demand for 300 soldiers, considering that Northumberland was quiet; +he expected the Council to arrest and send up the Charletons without any +such aid. He saw no reason against employing the Charletons in Norfolk’s +objection that they were murderers, but it was a very different matter +if they had refused to take his oath. The draft breaks off, and it is +impossible to say what further orders were in the completed +letter[1266]. + +On Monday 26 February the Duke of Norfolk dissolved Hexham Priory. All +passed quietly. Edward and Cuthbert Charleton were safe in the +fastnesses of North Tynedale, and did not consider that their oath bound +them to attack the King’s Lieutenant when he had superior forces[1267]. + +On Tuesday 27 February Sir Anthony Browne received the last of the +Reedsdale pledges, and the Tynedale men agreed to send in theirs on +Monday 5 March. Well pleased at seeing the end of this difficult task, +Sir Anthony left Berwick for Newcastle-upon-Tyne[1268]. At Morpeth he +was met by 300 of the King’s subjects who had been “sore harried and +spoiled” and begged for redress against the mosstroopers. Browne replied +to their petition that he had taken order for the restitution of their +lost goods, “whereat they are right joyous and glad.” Browne wrote that +all went well, and that he expected to be at court again in a +fortnight[1269]. If he had had more experience of the Borders, this very +look of peace would have made him uneasy. + +On Saturday 3 March Sir Anthony Browne was complacently sure that no +part of the realm was in better stay than the Middle Marches. That very +day Roger Fenwick, the Keeper of Tynedale, went to Bellingham to receive +the pledges of his dale. At midnight he was set upon and murdered “for +old grudges, by three naughty persons”; the murderers were John of +Charleton, Rynny Charleton and John Dod[1270]. + +Norfolk was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne at the time. Feeling his position +strengthened by the early failure of the King’s new policy, he drew up, +with the assistance of his council, an alternative scheme for the +government of the north. Henry was determined to be served no more on +the Marches by noblemen, who were as lawless as the reivers and might +use their isolation to become too powerful. Norfolk, on the other hand, +was convinced that only a nobleman, wielding such powers as any king +might fear to entrust to a subject, could keep order on the +Marches[1271]. According to Norfolk’s scheme, this nobleman ought to be +a member of the King’s Privy Council. He should be the King’s +Lieutenant, president of the proposed Council of the North, and the +ultimate authority in Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham +and Yorkshire. He was to have power to levy forces whenever he saw need. +He must be chief warden of all the Marches, with deputies under him. He +was to spend most of the year in the north and to sit two or three times +at Newcastle-upon-Tyne to administer justice in Northumberland, in such +cases as murders, felonies and debts, as the wardens had no authority to +judge between Englishman and Englishman except in cases of March +treason[1272], but only between Englishman and Scot. + +In this proposal Norfolk showed his hand. During the following months +there was a continuous subterranean struggle between the opposite +schemes of Henry and Norfolk for the government of the north. Although +little is to be found as yet about the Council of the North, there can +be no doubt that that was the form of government which Henry had in his +mind from the first. Against it Norfolk set up his scheme of a northern +dictator, with himself holding the dictatorship. It was a tempting but a +dangerous dream, and Norfolk dared not allow it to appear except by +hints and glimpses such as this. + +To strengthen the hands of the dictator of the north the Duke and his +council made a number of suggestions less open to criticism than the +main proposal: + + +(1) Reedsdale belonged to Lord Tailboys, but it “is wholly inhabited by +thieves and has always been used as a lord marcher’s liberty and is not +geldable.” Harbottle Castle, where the Keeper of Reedsdale ought to +dwell, was so ruinous that it was fit neither for a dwelling-place nor a +prison. The King ought either to compel Tailboys to repair Harbottle, or +take the whole valley into his own hands, giving Tailboys compensation. + +(2) Some fortress ought to be built in Tynedale, or else Simonburn +Castle, belonging to Heron of Ford, must be put into repair and made +over to the Keeper of Tynedale. + +(3) “Some true and hardy gentleman” was needed as Keeper of Tynedale, +which was to include Hexhamshire, Corbridge and the Barony of Langley. +All the gentlemen of the South Tyne valley should be ordered to rise at +his word in case of raiding or Scots invasions. + +(4) The Earl of Northumberland’s castles and lands should be taken into +the King’s hands, and the tenants instead of paying ingressum and such +charges should be commanded to be ready with horse and harness at short +notice. + +(5) Lord Dacre must be ordered to keep his tenants, the prickers of +Gillsland, in good rule, and they must be ready to attend the King’s +officers at the Border meetings. + +(6) The pensions granted to the gentlemen and headmen of Northumberland, +designed to encourage them in the King’s service, were not likely to +have that effect. The money would be better spent in rewarding good +service already done, or in making the castles defensible. + +(7) Finally the laws of the Marches ought to be fixed and written down, +as at present they worked with all the uncertainty of traditional +custom. + + +These suggestions, headed “A remembrance for order and good rule to be +had and kept in the north parts,” were sent up to London[1273]. In his +letter to the Privy Council dated 7 March Norfolk again urged that a +nobleman should be appointed warden, at least of the West Marches. +“Every man of wit” about him was agreed that no “mean person” could curb +the Marches. This was the moral he drew from the murder of Roger +Fenwick[1274]. + +The Privy Council answered this letter on 12 March. They pointed out +that the King had offered the wardenship of the East and Middle Marches +to two noblemen, who had both been reluctant to accept the office; +instead of reluctant servants he had taken the best men who would serve +him willingly. Norfolk had expressed approval of the scheme at first, +only objecting to a few of the pensioners, whose unfitness the Privy +Council now acknowledged. The King had been badly served on the West +Marches because of the Clifford feud; it would become still more bitter +if he appointed Lord Dacre to an office which the Earl of Cumberland had +just given up. Was not the King’s authority enough to make the meanest +man respected? “The King retaining all the gentlemen and headmen as he +doth shall not be ill served; at least it shall not be ill to assay it.” +They asked for the names of the “wise men” who had advised with +Norfolk[1275]. + +The Privy Council remained blandly unconscious of Norfolk’s very broad +hint that there was one nobleman who would not refuse to be warden of +all the Marches. Their reply also shows why Norfolk resented so much the +pensions which the King had granted. The recipients received the money +direct from the King; a special messenger had brought them their +patents, and it was made very plain that the Duke had nothing to do with +the gift. This struck a blow at Norfolk’s power of buying adherents by a +promise of court patronage, and when all the gentlemen and headmen were +the King’s servants, it became much more difficult for anyone else to +gather a strong band of retainers and allies. + +When Norfolk’s proposal was laid before the King, he replied in no +uncertain terms. On 17 March the Privy Council report to Norfolk the +following speech which the King himself had deigned to make. Henry +marvelled that Norfolk seemed so resolved that only noblemen should +serve him on the Marches: + +“When I would,” quoth his Highness, “have preferred to the wardenry of +the East and Middle Marches my lord of Westmorland, like as he did +utterly refuse it, so my lord of Norfolk noted him a man of such heat +and hastiness of nature that he could not think him meet for it. When we +would,” quoth his Grace, “have conferred it to my lord of Rutland, he +refused it also; and my lord of Norfolk noted him a man of too much +pusillanimity to have done us good service in it, if he would have +embraced an overture in it. And we think,” quoth his Highness, “he would +not advise us to continue in it my lord of Northumberland. Now if we +shall prefer none of these three to that room, we would be glad,” quoth +his Grace, “that my lord of Norfolk shall name a nobleman that he +thinketh meet for that office. For gladly we would have such a one in +store to appoint it unto, if we should hereafter alter our device, which +we be not yet determined to do, nor shall apply to that sentence, till +we have better experiment what should enforce us unto.”[1276] + +Norfolk could not, of course, name the “nobleman that he thinketh meet +for that office.” He had indicated the identity of that desirable +personage as plainly as possible. The King’s snub revealed to him his +mistake, and he remained silent for a considerable time, deep in his +multifarious duties in the north[1277]. + +On 11 March Norfolk was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, making the final +arrangements, as he thought, for bringing in the Border pledges[1278]. +Sir Anthony Browne, who was about to ride south, thought that there +would be little more trouble with Tynedale as certain men “of good +estimation” had undertaken to send pledges for all the inhabitants +except the murderers[1279]. Norfolk intended to return in Easter week to +see that his orders had been executed and to “hear many poor men’s +causes.”[1280] + +All that is known of the terms of Norfolk’s treaty with the men of +Tynedale may be gathered from the following letter, apparently addressed +to the Council of the Marches by the heads of the four graynes[1281]: + + “Worshipful master, this is our answers being the heads men of + Tynedale, it is so that we were called before the Duke of Norfolk’s + grace for such misorder as we have done in the late rebellion within + our sovereign lord’s realm, and there was commanded to make + restitution of the third part of all such goods as we had by our + oaths, and to find our felons given forth by the commissioners, and + that [_what_] we have not done we shall do. Also the said + commissioners hath given forth another decree, the which we may not + bide marvelling what is the cause thereof. This bill made the xvii day + of March. Also all conditions made before the Duke of Norfolk we will + fulfil and do to the uttermost. Also if they be any that be obstacle + to do the same, we bind us by this our writing to had [_hold_] him and + forcify him. By us— + + Thomas Charlton + Gylbert Charlton + Gerret Charlton of Wark + Gerre Charlton of the Boure. + Umfray Mylborn + Rynyone Charlton + Henry Yarro + John Wilkinson + John Robson of the Pawston + Jaffray Robson + Arche Robson. + Henry Dode + Arche Dode”[1282] + +There was no trouble, at present, between England and Scotland. The +deputy wardens, who had nothing to do with internal justice, could send +in satisfactory reports. The East Marches were quiet. On the Middle +Marches Sir John Widdrington and the Scots officers arranged for redress +between Liddesdale, Tynedale and Reedsdale according to the agreement +made at the last Border meeting. The King of Scots had sent special +orders that this should be observed on his side. Nevertheless there was +a general feeling that war would follow on James’ return from +France[1283]. + +At Easter Norfolk returned to Northumberland, as he had intended. He +made a tour of inspection round the Border castles and held a meeting +with the Scots warden of the Middle Marches. Norfolk was convinced by +his demeanour that there was no immediate intention of war[1284]. + +The Duke was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 5 April, where he was met by Sir +John Widdrington, Sir William Evers, the Council of the Marches and most +of the gentlemen. He was much displeased with the state of affairs. +Tynedale and Reedsdale had made no restitution, and were not likely to +do so unless they could be constrained by more effectual means than +keeping their kinsmen in prison[1285]. Neither dale would begin to make +restitution before the other. In spite of their thievings the borderers +were miserably poor, and in some cases they were in fact unable to +restore even a part of what they had stolen, for the cattle often went +to supply a pressing lack of meat. + +Some of the Reedsdale men had just raided Tynedale and harried one of +the Milburns. This was no doubt a surprise expedition, for Tynedale +could muster more spears than Reedsdale. The inhabitants of the two +valleys might fairly be said to eke out a precarious existence by +driving away each other’s cattle. A servant of the Carnabys had been +attacked. The mosstroopers scorned the garrison left to protect him and +burned his house to the ground. Sir John Widdrington had nowhere to +bestow the nine Reedsdale pledges except in the decayed tower of +Harbottle where “they cannot be kept strong, ne yet hath any victual for +them.” + +Sir William Evers had held two meetings with the Scots on the East +Marches, but no meeting had been held by the deputies of either the +Middle or the West Marches. If nothing more than this were done, Norfolk +thought the disorders would increase. He reported the unsatisfactory +state of affairs to the King on 7 April[1286]. He did not mention his +earlier scheme in the letter, but he sent a verbal message that only a +nobleman, armed with sufficient powers, could hope to keep order; as for +the name of anyone fit for the post, “the King knows his nobles.”[1287] + +Perhaps Norfolk was a little afraid of the effect which his sullen +message might produce, for on 12 April he wrote a hedging letter to +Cromwell. He thought that the Earl of Rutland would be the best warden +of the East and Middle Marches. Rutland was allied to all the gentlemen +of Northumberland, and also to the Earl of Westmorland. He was a man who +would listen to counsel, and as war was threatened “it is perilous for a +hasty, heady man to have the rule of such people, for the Scots can +train men to ambushments as well as any man living.” This remark was +aimed at Westmorland; but nevertheless the Duke considered him the best +man for the wardenship, failing Rutland. + +Norfolk had inquired of both my lord and my lady of Westmorland why the +Earl had refused the office, and found that it was for the following +reasons,—that the Earl’s servants had refused to serve the King during +the Pilgrimage, and he was busy dismissing them by degrees; the Earl was +not assured of the friendship of Robert Bowes, whose influence was so +great among Westmorland’s kinsmen and allies that he feared it would +outweigh his own; during the rebellion the Earl had defended Sir Reynold +Carnaby, and thereby attracted to himself some of the hatred felt on all +hands for Northumberland’s favourite. Norfolk thought that these reasons +were good. As to Bowes he “is not only very much esteemed but is a wise, +hardy man and dare well enterprise a great matter.” The King could not +do better than attach him to his service by a valuable grant. “Though I +dare not speak assuredly of a man so lately reconciled, yet if he may be +assured he may be very useful.” + +On the West Marches Norfolk put no faith in Sir Thomas Wharton, who was +suggested for the post of deputy warden. No one could do such good +service as Lord Dacre, but as he had been heavily fined so lately it +would not look well to restore his office; people would say that the +King was simply making everything he could out of him. The Earl of +Cumberland was the only suitable person left; “but he must be brought to +change his conditions and not be so greedy to get money of his tenants.” +Norfolk declared that this was his final opinion, and begged the King to +keep it secret[1288]. Needless to say, the King did not change his +plans, nor was he deceived as to Norfolk’s real ambition. + +About this time, the middle of April 1537, the rumours of an approaching +war with Scotland became alarming. In order to understand their origin, +it is necessary to trace the relations of England, France and Scotland +during the last five months. + +James V, King of Scotland, was at Tournelles near Paris in December +1536, preparing for his wedding with Francis I’s daughter +Madeleine[1289]. The French were pleased with his gentleness and Faenza, +the Papal Nuncio, with his devotion to the Holy See[1290]. To the +English ambassadors he was cold and distant, and Wallop described him, +not without malice, as a countrified youth. “His manner of using himself +by that we do perceive is after the northern fashion, as the lords of +those parts doth use themselves when they come first to court, now +looking over one shoulder, now over the other, with a beck to one and a +beck to another, and unto us nothing. He is a right proper man after the +northern fashion. His being here shall do him much good, and to us +little profit; for here he shall learn many things.”[1291] It seems to +have been the fashion at the English court to talk of the Scots as if +they were barbarians, but James probably had his own reasons for seeming +shy to the English ambassadors. + +He spent much of his time practising for the jousts which were to be +held at his wedding[1292]. Francis showed him every courtesy and when he +entered Paris in state on 31 December 1536 the Court of Parliament went +before him clad in red cloaks, an honour not usually accorded to any but +the King of France[1293]. The marriage took place on New Year’s Day, +with great magnificence, and a proper display of sumptuous apparel, +cloth of gold, and precious stones. After the wedding was a banquet, and +after the banquet a mask and dancing. Next day there was jousting at +Tournelles. The King of Scots was a true sportsman, and appeared at his +wedding with a wound caused by “a great stroke with a spear upon the +left side of his head ... being a sore blemish in his face all this +triumphing time.”[1294] + +On 19 January 1536–7 Faenza wrote that there was good hope of English +affairs going well. The people stood firmly to their demands. The King +had received ambassadors from them graciously, which showed that he must +be aware of his own weakness. No doubt some report of Aske’s reception +at court had reached France. The Nuncio suggested that Pole should be +sent to England and that the Censures should be published at once[1295], +but as soon as he received definite orders to publish them he hung +back[1296]. This made little difference, however, as the time when they +would have been useful had passed. + +James V desired to return home through England, but he felt some +difficulty about requesting Henry’s hospitality. The King of England had +always opposed the French marriage, and James, to avoid his +remonstrances, had not consulted him on the subject. Henry professed +himself grieved and offended by this neglect[1297]. Nevertheless James +did not wish to take the long voyage home with his young bride in the +stormy season of the year, and as he was anxious to return to Scotland, +he ventured to make his request through the French ambassador in +England. + +Henry was by no means inclined to do his nephew a favour. He considered +it very strange that the King of Scots should not make the request in +his own name. On 4 February the Privy Council asked Norfolk’s advice on +the subject[1298]. The Duke’s position was a delicate one. James was +possibly the future King of England. His friendship would in any case be +very valuable to the dictator of the north. In spite of Henry’s obvious +wishes Norfolk ventured to consult his own future interests, and replied +that it would do no harm for James to pass through England, except on +the score of expense. It was probably Scots pride which prevented him +from writing to the King himself, and the peace and riches of England +could cause nothing but wholesome humiliation to one with “a very +enemy’s heart in his body.”[1299] But Henry determined to show his +nephew no courtesy. “The King’s honour is not to receive the King of +Scots into his realm unless he will come as his Grace’s vassal. For +there came never King of Scots into England in peaceable manner but +after that sort.” Henry enumerated all his grievances against James, and +concluded with the argument that the country must appear peaceful and +loyal to an enemy who was passing through it, and to secure this +appearance it might be necessary to make concessions to the disaffected +which would afterwards cause trouble. James’ overtures met with no +response, and he was obliged to face the sea voyage[1300]. + +This affair did not improve the relations between the two countries. +James became more gracious than ever to the Papal Nuncio at Paris. He +was ready to further the Pope’s plan of reconciling Francis and Charles, +and he cherished the splendid dream of all young kings, that he would go +in person to fight against the infidels. The Scots disliked Henry’s +policy and his person. They saw that his growing despotism was a menace +to Scotland. David Beaton, the Abbot of Arbroath and Keeper of the Privy +Seal, was willing, if the Pope desired it, to send the Censures secretly +into England and cause them to be published suddenly when Henry VIII was +in the north[1301]. It is impossible to say what the effect of this bold +scheme would have been, but the Papal court had not sufficient energy to +take it up, and Henry did not travel north after all at this time. + +The Pope sent James V a consecrated cap and sword, as a special token of +his favour, together with an exhortation against heresy[1302]. The King +of Scots was pleased and stirred by the symbol. “With as many words as +he can say in French, [he] again thanks his Holiness for the sword. I +know it has touched his heart and tomorrow morning the ceremony [of +presentation] shall be,” wrote the Papal Nuncio on 18 February[1303]. + +On 8 March the King and Queen of Scots took leave of Francis at +Compiègne and went to Rouen, whence they were to sail[1304]. They waited +there for nearly two months before they embarked. The young Queen was +consumptive and could not well bear the voyage, which was therefore +delayed until a more favourable time of year. James distrusted Henry’s +intentions. The English ships held command of the sea and before now a +King of Scotland had been captured on his voyage and carried prisoner to +London. Rumour said that there were ten armed English ships on the coast +and ten more in Flanders, and though James had fourteen ships of his own +and eight lent for the voyage by Francis, he feared that Henry might +begin hostilities by an attack on his fleet. + +Henry, however, was not on such good terms with the Emperor as Francis +imagined, and was not disposed for war. Though relations were strained +between France and England, neither was prepared to fight[1305]. The war +with the Emperor kept Francis busy, and Henry needed time to recover +after the late crisis in England. James had no intention of attacking +England without his father-in-law’s support. Nevertheless the news that +he was bringing home his French bride raised a general expectation of +war with Scotland. + +At a friend’s house in West Malling, Kent, James Fredewell a priest, was +playing at tables with Adam Lewes, the schoolmaster, one day in April +1537. The priest asked a man who was going to London to buy him a book. +Lewes asked if he would buy the New Testament, but Fredewell replied he +wished all the Testaments in English were burnt. + +“What! will ye burn the Gospel of Christ and the word of God?” said the +schoolmaster. + +“Tush!” quoth the priest, “I will buy me a portresse to say my service +on, as I was wont to do.” + +They finished their game and went to John Doomright’s shop, where a pile +of Acts of Parliament lay, concerning artillery, dress and unlawful +games. Lewes remarked that he hoped they would be better enforced when +the King had finished with the work in hand. + +“Yea,” said Fredewell, “the King is like to have more to do yet.” + +“Why so?” said the shop-keeper, “his Grace hath overcome his enemies of +the north, for they hang at their own doors.” + +“What then?” returned the priest, “there is another bird abreeding that +came not forth yet which will come forth before midsummer, that the King +had never such since he was King of England.” + +Being asked what he meant, he told them that the Emperor had given the +King Flanders, but if Henry took the Emperor’s part, both the King of +France and the King of Scots would be on his neck, and Francis had made +James Admiral of the sea. The schoolmaster declared that they could do +little hurt; but if the King made war beyond the sea he would do well to +cut off the priests’ heads first or they would betray him. Fredewell +retorted that that was easier said than done. Lewes went away and +another priest called Cuthbert came into the shop. He picked up an +English Testament and said he was an evil man who translated it, or the +Emperor would not have burnt him. The shop-keeper asked if no good men +were ever put to death by the Bishop of Rome. “Yes,” said Fredewell, +“there were some put to death within this two year that was as good +livers and as faithful as be now alive.” Cuthbert said that the Bishop +of Rome never put good men to death, and the two priests left the shop +discussing whether it were lawful for priests to marry[1306]. Fredewell +probably meant the Pilgrims when he spoke of the faithful who were put +to death. + +At Whitsuntide a citizen of Leicester, who had been making a circuit of +pilgrimages in the north of England and Scotland, reported the rumours +which he had heard by the way. In Edinburgh it was said that King James +would make war on England for “the Seven Sheriffdoms” unless the King of +England would give them to him freely, and that James had proclaimed +himself Duke of York and Prince of Wales. There were said to be 15,000 +Englishmen in Scotland, fugitives who had fled from Norfolk. Two of them +were pointed out to the pilgrim in Edinburgh; one was a gentleman +wearing a black velvet coat, and yet it was said that he had been but a +poor man in England. The other, a priest, was now a canon in a house of +religion near Holyrood. These Englishmen had promised to be in the van +of an invasion of England, and to raise all Northumberland[1307]. + +Scots rhymes, prophecies and ballads aimed against Henry spread into +England from time to time. An instance of this came to light at Royston, +Hertford. The story is painful and rather perplexing. Robert Dalyvell of +Royston went to Scotland “to learn the cunning in the craft of a +saddler” about April 1535. He lived in Edinburgh with a saddler for +about eight weeks and heard many Scots, both light persons and men of +reputation, say that their king should be crowned King of England in +London before midsummer three years later, i.e. 1538. They had read this +in books of prophecy. Dalyvell returned to England and wandered about +the north, working for a few weeks at York, Gateshead and +Chester-le-Street; at the last place he heard several Scots say that +their king was worthy to be king of England, and next in blood. He told +them they were false traitors and their master rebuked them. Dalyvell +went back to Edinburgh and “the Scots that railed before read the +prophecies of Merlin in his hearing.” He returned home to Royston in +1537 and “on Tuesday night after Palm Sunday at midnight, his wife being +asleep” an angel appeared to him, saying, “Arise, and show your prince +that the Scots would never be true to him.” The next night he had the +same vision, but he did not obey it. + +On 11 June 1537 Dalyvell told a serving-man in the stable of the +Greyhound, Royston, some of the prophecies which he had heard from the +Scots, that if the King did not amend he should not live a month after +the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist 1538, and that before +that day a horse worth 10_s._ “shall be able to bear all the noble blood +of England.”[1308] Whether the serving-man reported the matter, or +whether Dalyvell himself confessed in a panic does not appear, but he +was examined by seven magistrates and admitted the words[1309]. He was +sent to London and made a fuller statement next day. It is difficult to +see why so much importance was attached to the story of a poor man who +seems to have been half-witted. Perhaps Cromwell hoped to get hold of +some Scots spies by his means; and he endeavoured to make Dalyvell +accuse priests. Though he was racked and cross-examined the prisoner had +only one story to tell, and declared that of all the religious men he +had known not one had spoken of prophecies even in confession[1310]. + +That Henry himself was anxious about James’ intentions is shown by the +matters treated in the Privy Council on 3 April 1537. It was decided +that Calais, Carlisle, and Berwick must be victualled and prepared for +defence. The English navy must be in readiness for immediate service. +The commission of the peace must be purged of all but “men of worship +and wisdom meet for the same”; and letters must be sent to all justices +to keep special watch for seditious persons; as a further precaution +certain of the nobles would be ordered to live in their own counties for +a time. + +The Pope was trying to reconcile the Emperor and Francis in order that +all three might attack England; the King must contrive to have one +friend at least, and as alliances were generally concluded by a +marriage, the King’s two daughters, though illegitimate, must have such +provision made for them that their hands would be accepted by foreign +princes. The Queen was pregnant, but still it was expedient that one of +the King’s daughters should be declared legitimate “to take away the +remainder hanging upon the King of Scots,” who might be tempted by the +French to bring forward his claim[1311]. + +Meanwhile the Border was alive with rumours of war. No one had yet been +appointed deputy warden of the West Marches, but Sir John Lowther, the +Earl of Cumberland’s deputy captain at Carlisle, was doing the work. +Hearing a rumour on Easter Eve [31 March 1537] that the Scots were +mustering, Lowther sent Edward Story the warden-serjeant with a letter +to Lord Maxwell the Scots warden, in order that Story might pick up news +by the way. Story talked for a long time with Maxwell, who told him that +general musters had been proclaimed in every borough town in Scotland. +Each man was expected to appear with “a jack of plate, a steel bonnet +and splints, and a spear six ells long, and all who can, a horse.” The +King of Scots was expected at any time; he was waiting for a fair wind +and he hoped “to escape the ships of the sea.” Maxwell declared that if +the King had been at home during the rebellion he would “have kept his +house in Carlisle before this.” + +Lowther forwarded this news to the Earl of Cumberland on 6 April, and +reminded him that Maxwell’s boast might well be true, for neither the +city nor the castle was strong, and he lacked ordnance, powder and +gunners[1312]. The Earl received the letter at Skipton, and sent on the +warning to the King. He thought that a Scots general would attack either +Berwick or Carlisle, and he dwelt upon the weakness of the latter[1313]. + +In February Henry had sent a request to the Regents of Scotland by Ralph +Sadler that rebels flying from the Duke of Norfolk’s justice might be +carefully returned to England. He received a flowery answer from the +Scots Council, promising all that he asked[1314]; but though the Scots +wardens were charged not to harbour English fugitives[1315], they were +not expected to take their orders seriously, and such of the Pilgrims as +escaped across the Border were safe. + +On 7 April Norfolk at Newcastle-upon-Tyne wrote to inform the Regents +that John Charleton, Rinian Charleton and John Dod, the slayers of Roger +Fenwick, were being sheltered at Jedburgh Abbey. He demanded that they +should be arrested and delivered to the English wardens[1316]. Henry +Ray, Berwick Pursuivant, a very important personage on the Borders, +carried the letter. He was given no credence, but he was instructed to +enlarge upon the peace, contentment, prosperity and riches of England to +the Regents and all other Scots. On his way he was to find out all he +could as to whether the people wished for war, how the new taxes were +taken, and why some of the lords had gone with a large company into +Fife. + +On 9 April Berwick Pursuivant arrived at Edinburgh and dined with the +Bishop of Aberdeen, who was Treasurer of Scotland. The Bishop made +enquiries about the insurrection in England. Ray replied that the realm +was never in better order than it was at present. The Treasurer said, +“That is very well, but ye have put down many good Christian men.” Ray +admitted that they were Christian men, but if they had been good men +they would not have been put down,—“I trow, my lord, we are as good +Christian men as any in the world.” The Treasurer replied, “Ye that are +poor men are good, but the heads are worst; for if ye English men be so +good, then is France, Italy and many other countries clearly deceived.” +Adam Otterburn, a member of the Scots Council who was dining with them, +asked what ships were set on the sea. Ray answered that he knew of none. +He gave them the English news according to his instructions. The +Treasurer said that he was very glad to hear of so much peace and +rejoicing, and that he would pray for the King of England and all the +realm, “that ye may be good men.” Ray retorted, “Ye can not, my lord, so +soon begin your prayer, but it is had, for we are good already.” He +asked why the Scots Borderers were so sure that there would be war when +their King came home. The Treasurer merely said that it would not be +Scotland’s fault if there were a war. + +This humourous hostility, half hidden by a jest, was one sign of the +national feeling which watched Henry’s despotism with such jealousy. On +his return Ray reported that the commons of Scotland were greatly roused +against England, because they believed that English ships had been sent +to take their King on his homeward voyage, and that Henry and the +Emperor were in league to attack France. If that happened, they said, +they would take the French King’s part. They called the English +heretics, and were more inclined to war than peace. The new money was +paid already, without any rebellion. Lord Maxwell was the only lord who +had gone beyond Fife, but for what purpose Ray could not find out. When +Ray spoke of the King of England’s power and riches “they say (and in my +judgment verily think) they are able to withstand us or any other. And +they marvel that my lord of Norfolk lieth in the north parts so long, +fearing that his delay and the sailing of the King’s ships means some +mischief to them.”[1317] + +Ray brought back a letter, dated at Glasgow 11 April, from the +Chancellor of Scotland to Norfolk. The Chancellor acknowledged Norfolk’s +letter in the name of the Regents. He could scarcely believe that their +strict orders against the receipt of fugitives had been disobeyed, but +if Norfolk would give them time to make inquiries, anyone found in fault +should be sharply punished[1318]. The pursuivant reached Sheriffhutton +Castle, where Norfolk had taken up his residence, on 17 April. The +Chancellor’s letter and the report were forwarded to Cromwell. Norfolk +sent Ray back to Scotland to pick up some more news[1319]. It was +generally believed that there would be war. For example, Sir Thomas +Clifford, the captain of Berwick, was in London. One of his servants +wrote from Berwick to tell him that the Mayor and townsmen begged him to +show their needs to the King and the Privy Council, as war appeared to +be imminent and they were not prepared for a siege[1320]. + +The urgent reminders of the Border captains were not unheeded. The King +was as anxious as they to secure his frontiers. On 13 April lists were +drawn up of the northern fortresses, classified according to whether +they required repair or were defensible. Sir George Lawson, the +Treasurer of Berwick, received orders to victual the town. On 18 April +he wrote to Cromwell to ask for more explicit instructions, and for more +money, as he had not nearly so much as Cromwell expected[1321]. Norfolk +gave Cumberland similar orders for the victualling of Carlisle, and the +Earl sent a similar plaint to headquarters. The country was almost +desolated by the recent risings, and food of all sorts was very +difficult to procure. At Carlisle there was the old story of lack of +guns and men, which he had repeated times out of number[1322]. + +Norfolk had now taken up his quarters at Sheriffhutton Castle, which he +left only to hold assizes or suppress a monastery. He had the chief +pledges of Tynedale and Reedsdale in his hands, and hoped by their means +to be able to extort restitution from their kinsfolk. He was troubled +about the matter, for the honest subjects who had been harried demanded +a great deal, and the raiders possessed very little[1323]. The ravages +of the Scots did not improve the honest men’s chances of compensation. +In April there were several Scots raids on both the East and the West +Marches, and Lord Maxwell would not appoint a date for redress. In point +of fact both the English and the Scots wardens were convinced that war +would break out in a few weeks; and they thought it useless to make +appointments that would not be kept and to administer law in a district +which might any day be plunged into anarchy[1324]. + +Lowther’s spies brought him word that James V was expected daily. All +the ships on the west coast had gone out to meet him[1325]. In all +Scotland the common bruit was that there would be war when the King came +home[1326]. Great preparations were made for his reception. He was +expected on May Day, for at length the wind was in his favour. Lowther +wrote to Cumberland that provision could hardly be made for Carlisle in +time, “for either now war of Scotland when the King’s purse is full of +the French gold, or never.” He cheerfully added that if corn were sent +to Carlisle there was no mill in the castle to grind it, and if they +obtained good ordnance, there was no one who could shoot guns. He had +sent a spy to Edinburgh to bring news of James’ arrival. This letter was +sent on St Mark’s Day, 25 April[1327]. + +Amid the rising excitement Norfolk was calm. He understood the situation +better than the gentlemen of the Marches, who were soldiers, but not +statesmen. He knew that peace or war depended on Francis I, and that +England was not on such terms with France as to cause immediate alarm. +Still, he thought it well to be prepared. He had such good espial in +Scotland that no move could be made without his knowledge. Berwick +Pursuivant reached Edinburgh on his second mission on 23 April. He +carried to the Chancellor another letter which demanded the delivery of +English rebels. The Scots Council was heartily tired of these demands. +When Ray appeared before them he was asked, “What is the cause ye send +your friars to us?” He replied, “We send none, we had liever keep them +ourself.” + +“If they tarried with you, ye had made martyrs of them.” “Nay,” +interposed the Chancellor, “but patriarchs.” + +On 25 April Ray waited on the Bishop of Aberdeen to give him Norfolk’s +thanks for a present of hawks. In answer to the Bishop’s promise that he +would pray that the King and all England might be made good men, Norfolk +sent the message that in no country was God better served, and that the +Bishop of Rome had no authority out of his own diocese. The Treasurer +replied that he felt no grudge towards England for that matter, “but for +the cruelness of you that put down your own poor commons.”[1328] Ray +brought back to Norfolk a reply from the Chancellor which again promised +that the cases which he mentioned should be investigated[1329], and a +secret message from the Queen Mother that no lord in Scotland would give +the King her son counsel friendly to England[1330]. + +On 2 May Henry sent a gracious letter of thanks to Norfolk for his +services in the north. The King still intended to make a royal progress +to York, where he would declare a general pardon, with only a few +exceptions. He would see about paying Norfolk’s expenses, though “to be +plain with you we think that divers of the gentlemen ... might well have +served us better cheap, for some part of a recompense of their former +offences.... We do accept in good part the declaration of your opinion +touching the Marches. Nevertheless we doubt not but you will both +conform your own mind to find out the good of that order which we have +therein determined, and cause other by your good mean to perceive the +same.” Finally money had been sent for the victualling of Berwick and +Carlisle[1331]. Berwick was now in process of being put into a +thoroughly defensible condition[1332]. The other Border fortresses were +constantly in the King’s mind, and suggestions on the subject were often +laid before the Privy Council, but they seem to have had no immediate +effect[1333]. + +At this time Norfolk was vainly petitioning the King for leave to come +to court. On 9 May he excused his repeated requests. He explained that +his character was being attacked in his absence. He mentioned the +rumours that he had encouraged the rebels[1334]. It was said that he had +sent for his son, the Earl of Surrey, to instruct him in northern +affairs in order that he might presently take his father’s place. +Norfolk protested that all these tales were false. He had never +encouraged the rebels. He had sent for his son partly because he had +hoped the King would give him leave to come south for a short time, and +he could not have kept his retinue in the north without Surrey; and +partly because “in truth I love him better than all my children, and +would have gladly had him here to hunt, shoot, play cards, and entertain +my servants, so that they should be less desirous of leave to go home to +their wives.” Norfolk besought the King, if he thought him a true man, +to allow him to come up and answer his enemies[1335]. He protested that +if he had not been on the King’s service not all the Earl of +Northumberland’s lands would have kept him so long in the north[1336]. +If he stayed much after Michaelmas, he thought it would cost him his +life. He had also many private reasons to justify his wish to return to +London[1337]. + +Henry replied on 13 May that he had heard none of the slanders to which +Norfolk referred; if he had, he would have mentioned them to the Duke. +“You know our nature is too frank to retain any such thing from him that +we love and trust.” Norfolk must not credit all the light tales that +reached his ears. He could not be spared from the north until after the +King’s progress, which would shortly take place. Henry hoped that the +Duke would settle all disputes, so that he might not be troubled with +petitions. The tone of the King’s letter was friendly, but, though he +declared himself assured that Norfolk had not sent for Surrey for “any +purpose not to our good contentment,” yet he pointed out that as the +Duke had summoned his son without consulting the King, it gave an +occasion for people to think evil, which might have been avoided[1338]. + +In fact Norfolk protested too much about Surrey. The cautious old +nobleman believed that he had recovered after his first false step, and +was beginning once more to feel his way towards the object of his +ambition, the dictatorship of the north. It was the dream of many +powerful men to hold the place there which the Percys alone had held. +Norfolk had declared that a nobleman must rule there—that this man must +have the joint powers of Warden of all the Marches and Lieutenant of the +North. Then he held off and suggested that the Earl of Cumberland should +have the West Marches and the Earl of Rutland the Middle and East. +Norfolk did not suggest anyone to fill the great office his imagination +had summoned up; he intimated that it would not become him to suggest +the obvious man. In fact all his letters were full of his hatred of the +north, and his fear that the climate would be the death of him. “For all +the lands the Earl of Northumberland hath and had” he would not tarry +there after Michaelmas[1339]. “All the Earl of Northumberland’s +land,”—at that time they become a refrain in Norfolk’s letters, the +refrain of his ambition. He kept a careful eye on the dying Earl’s +extravagances. If the Earl wished to sell wood, Norfolk saved the Percy +forests from the axe[1340]. Northumberland was giving away his goods and +houses, even the bricks of Wressell Castle, perhaps in a vindictive +effort to save something from the King. Norfolk reported this to +Cromwell and declared that it must be stopped[1341]. + +At the same time the Duke suggested that the household stuff of Jervaux +and Bridlington, and of Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, and Sir John +Bulmer, should be stored in the King’s wardrobe at Sheriffhutton Castle, +for the use of the Council of the North, or of any nobleman whom the +King might send to those parts. If the goods were sold he said that the +King would not receive a third of their value[1342]. This is another +sign of the way his thoughts were tending. Later he wrote that Cromwell +would marvel if he knew how often Norfolk had been urged by the northern +gentlemen to ask for some of Northumberland’s lands and to settle down +among them. But he was determined never again to cross the Trent +northwards, unless he were with the King, or marching against the King’s +enemies[1343]. + +Clearer hints were never dropped. Norfolk loathed the north,—but if the +King made it worth his while, very well worth his while, he was the +nobleman who would be lieutenant and warden at once. Henry must have +laughed with Cromwell over Norfolk’s palpable ambition. The King had +fairly rid himself of the Percys, and he would never put a Howard or any +other nobleman in their place. Without a considerable grant of land, +Norfolk could not turn to advantage the influence which he thought he +possessed in the north; nor was his fear or favour there so great as to +enable him to take the Percys’ place, even though he held their lands. +He had deceived the northern men, and they were not likely to forget all +that they owed to “this false duke.” + +The Howards had no ancient connection with the north; their influence +began at Flodden and might well have ended at Doncaster, if fate had not +been contrary. The Percys had been surrounded by all the splendour of +hereditary right and traditional leadership; they had made the north +famous, and a hundred tales gave them a place in the hearts of the +people. Now the great house was represented by the old Countess who +outlived all her sons, and by Sir Thomas Percy’s two little boys. Fallen +though it seemed, the house of Howard could not take its place; nor did +the White Lion ever put down the Blue. The Dacres might have filled the +place of the greatest lords in the north, but after years of true +service on the Borders the King and the Clifford feud had left Lord +Dacre a ruined man. Henry had little to fear from the Earl of +Cumberland, because of his many feuds and the hatred of his own tenants. +As to the Earl of Westmorland, he was one of the few noblemen who cared +less for place and power than for a quiet life and a safe head. Norfolk +was allowed to imagine that he was winning the north for himself when he +was really buying service for the King. No doubt Henry thought that the +illusion did no harm and might make him work better. + +James V of Scotland had at last embarked on his homeward voyage. It was +a long and slow one. About six o’clock on the evening of Tuesday 15 May +his ships lay at anchor off Scarborough. Norfolk wrote to Cromwell: “If +God would have sent such good fortune, that he might have landed in +these parts, I would so honestly have handled him that he should have +drunk of my wine at Sheriffhutton, and the Queen also, before his return +to Scotland.”[1344] There is a sinister ring in the words. Kings of +Scotland were not so often guests as prisoners in the King of England’s +castles. + +If Norfolk had tried the experiment, he might have found unexpected +difficulty in taking James. A party went ashore from the King’s fleet to +buy victuals in Scarborough, and several boats put out to James’ ship. +To one Englishman James said: “Ye Englishmen have let me of my return; +an if ye had not been, I had been at home forty days past. But now I am +here and will be shortly at home, whoso saith nay.” + +A party of twelve English fishermen came to speak with the King of +Scots. On coming into his presence, they fell on their knees and +“thanked God of his healthful and sound repair, showing how they had +long looked for him, and how they were oppressed, slain and murdered, +desiring him for God’s sake to come in, and he should have all.” To this +pass had Norfolk’s pacification brought the northern men, who had +hitherto hated the Scots worse than the devil. James was a good deal +troubled by this offer from his uncle’s subjects. He refused to speak to +a gentleman who came aboard, lest the man should say the same thing. + +Presently the fleet sailed from Scarborough with so light a wind that +Norfolk thought they might make Aberdeen, but not the Forth. At +Whitburn, near Tynemouth, James cast anchor again, and ten Englishmen +came to him with the same complaints, “promising plainly that if the +said King of Scots would take upon him to come in all should be +his.”[1345] One or two boats went ashore and a party of Frenchmen and +Scots landed. With them was an Englishman, James Crane, who was in the +service of the French Vice-Admiral. He was really one of Cromwell’s +spies, but he probably passed as a refugee. With his companions he met +the priest of the parish, and asked what news there was in England. The +priest replied, “Ill news, for they kill and hang up men in this +country.” Crane seems to have abused the King of England, to lead the +unsuspecting priest into further conversation. He asked where the Duke +of Norfolk lay, and the priest said either at Sheriffhutton or at York; +he added that the Duke dealt so cruelly with the north parts that he +wished Norfolk were hanged on one side of a tree and Cromwell on the +other. If the King of Scots had come home five months sooner and had +entered England, the priest declared that he would have helped to carry +him in triumph to London. As they talked by the seaside, he pointed out +the lie of the coast: “Lo, here is as good and as ready landing for men +as any place in England.”[1346] + +On 18 May eleven of James’ ships were sighted from Berwick. They lay +becalmed in sight of the town from noon that day until the morning of +the 19th. A party from one of the vessels landed at Alnmouth, and the +Queen’s gentleman usher rode on to Edinburgh to prepare for the royal +reception. Sir Thomas Clifford kept good watch while the King of Scots +lay so near, and sent out horsemen during the night to see if any man +came ashore[1347]. James must have been moved by the petition of the +English fishermen. When his ship drew to the northwards of Berwick, he +looked back upon the town and said to the gentlemen in attendance on +him, “if he lived one year he should himself break a spear on one +Englishman’s breast.” + +Berwick Pursuivant was again on mission to Scotland. He saw the King and +Queen land at Leith haven at ten o’clock on Whitsun Eve, 19 May 1537. +The Vice-Admiral of France and the Bishop of Limoges were the only great +men with him. His fleet consisted of ten great ships of France and four +Scots ships. On Whit Monday the King and Queen made their entry into +Edinburgh “and took their lodging in the Abbey of Holyrood House.” + +In Edinburgh Berwick Pursuivant met James Crane, the English spy in the +French Vice-Admiral’s service. Crane, seeing by the arms of England “in +a box upon his breast” that Ray was an Englishman, took him aside to +talk to him. He asked Ray to carry credence to Ralph Sadler “upon a +token that when the said Ralph Sadler was in France, he did inquire for +the said James at his own house in Rouen.” The credence was an account +of the voyage, especially of the two embassies of English fishermen and +peasants who had spoken with James. All the French ships were going +home, except the _Salamander_, which was a present from Francis to his +son-in-law. Crane was obliged to go with his master, though he would +have “given £20 on the condition that he might himself come through your +Highness’ realm to show further his mind in the premisses.” + +Ray reported this to Sir Thomas Clifford at Berwick, and on 26 May the +account was sent on to the King[1348]. By this time all the French ships +had passed Berwick on their homeward voyage[1349]. Norfolk called +Crane’s story “some lies out of Scotland,” and assured Cromwell that it +was totally false, for he himself had been at Bridlington the day after +James passed, and had examined the only Englishman on the coast who had +spoken to the Scots King[1350]. Norfolk was anxious to discredit the +report, as he had been insisting for some time past that the north was +reduced to perfect obedience and loyalty. Sir John Neville wrote that +all the people rejoiced that the King and Cromwell were coming to the +north. It was a pity that Richard Cromwell was not there to hear them +talk; no men ever repented so sorely as they did[1351]. + +With his usual prudence Cromwell paid more heed to the foul than the +fair reports. In spite of Norfolk’s scepticism Crane was summoned from +France, and sent on 20 July to Norfolk at Sheriffhutton[1352]. The Duke +still made light of his story, as his geography had been much confused +by the long voyage. He described a place which he said lay to the south +of Scarborough, but no one could recognise it, and he could not give the +names of the “false knaves” who had spoken to James[1353]. To settle the +matter Norfolk sent him with a sure, wise and secret gentleman to ride +all along the north coast from Flamborough to Tynemouth in order to see +if Crane could recognise the place. His description of it was that the +church steeple was a sea-mark, that the church was dedicated to St +Andrew, and that the vicar was one of the King’s chaplains; it was with +his parish priest that Crane had held the seditious conversation. When +Crane and his companion came in sight of Whitburn, Crane declared that +that was the steeple. On inquiry the wise gentleman learned that the +church was dedicated to St Andrew and that the vicar was Dr Marshall, +one of the King’s chaplains. Norfolk was obliged to admit that there +might be truth in Crane’s story[1354]. + +Crane could not say where the fishermen lived, and he did not know their +names, but he described the leader of the party as a mariner with black +hair and a weather-beaten countenance[1355]. The priest of Whitburn, +Robert Hodge, was examined by Norfolk and his council. He confessed his +words, but declared that Dr Marshall had never spoken sedition and often +preached against the Pope[1356]. Norfolk sent Sir Thomas Hilton, the +sheriff of Durham, to discover those who had been aboard the French +Admiral’s ship, and to arrest the leader of the party, if he had not +gone to Shetland for the fishing[1357]. James Crane was given a pardon +and leave to return to France[1358]. On 22 September Robert Hodge and +two unnamed mariners, one of whom was the leader of the fishermen, were +hanged in chains at Newcastle-upon-Tyne[1359]. + +In order to prevent James’ interviews with the discontented peasants +from raising false hopes in Scotland, Henry sent Ralph Sadler as +ambassador to James with professions of friendship and instructions to +urge the King of Scots to follow his lead by throwing off the Pope and +confiscating Church property[1360]. + +All this while the Duke of Norfolk had been gradually going through an +immense amount of law-work. A great many people had been plundered or +had lost their goods during the rebellion. Most of them must have been +poor men, for little or nothing can be learnt about their wrongs. If any +full account of Norfolk’s proceedings for redress remained, it would +contain many local details of the Pilgrimage. On 18 May he wrote to +Gardiner and Sir Francis Brian, who were on an embassy in France, with +some natural self-satisfaction:— + + “This country, thanked be God, is, I think, at this hour in as good + obedience as any part of the realm and of such sort that of late at my + coming hither I had not thought possible it should of long time have + been brought to so good pass. There was marvellous spoils at the time + of the insurrection through all these countries and divided in + thousands of men’s hands; and yet such restitution made that at this + day there is very few that is not agreed withal, and the parties + satisfied. It should be a very unreasonable thing that I would command + to be done here that should not be shortly accomplished in all my + Lieutenancy; save only in Tynedale and Reedsdale, of whom I have ten + pledges at Sheriffhutton which lie upon their lives if their country + men do not well. Finally I pray God send us three grace merrily to + meet this winter at London.”[1361] + +There are details of two cases of spoil and restitution, but as they +both concern rich men, they are probably not characteristic of the rest. +The first concerned the plundering of Blythman’s house at York, and has +already been described[1362]. The second was the case of Robert +Holdsworth, vicar of Halifax; his vicarage was appropriated by the +rebels, his goods carried off by his enemies the Tempests, and his +hidden pot of gold was found by Thomas Lacy[1363]. + +During the first week of Lent 1536–7 Thomas Lacy went to confession. He +told his ghostly father how he had found the money and asked what he +should do with it. The confessor advised him to keep it until after Low +Sunday [8 April]. Two or three days after the appointed date, Lacy +brought the money to his ghostly father’s room in a canvas pepper poke, +and from there carried it to the vicarage, dropped it over the wall into +the court, and left it. With an impulse as natural as dishonest, he kept +£67 for himself; but presently he repented again and gave it up to Sir +Alexander Emmet, Holdsworth’s parish priest. Out of the whole sum Lacy +had spent only 26_s._ 6_d._ “about his seeding.”[1364] + +The Vicar returned to Halifax from London “after Mid-Lent Sunday” [11 +March]. He had been urging his own cause with Cromwell, while Sir Henry +Saville petitioned the Duke of Norfolk on his behalf. When he reached +home and found the treasure gone, he did not complain to Norfolk and +mentioned his loss only to the friends who knew of its hiding-place, Sir +Henry Saville, Alexander Emmet, his sister and her son[1365]. + +While Holdsworth was in London he had obtained writs of attachment +against the Lacys and others who had plundered his vicarage. During +Easter Week he went to York and begged Norfolk’s favour in the matter. +The Duke promised that he should have restitution or the writs should be +executed. Holdsworth was still too prudent to mention the great sum that +he had lost. + +About a week later Alexander Emmet delivered £789. 8_s._ 9_d._ to +Holdsworth in gold, simply saying that it came to him in confession. The +priest must have been waiting in the vicarage court for the heavy bag +that came over the wall[1366]. + +The matter might have ended there to the satisfaction of everyone +concerned, but too many people were in the secret. The Vicar had +subpoenas against Lacy and his servants, but they did not appear. Lacy +said contemptuously, “If they will have my head they shall fetch it.” He +had nicknamed one of his servants Audley and another Cromwell, and said +he could not fail to do well having both the Lord Chancellor and the +Lord Privy Seal with him. He admitted that he had robbed the Vicar, but +he said that the money was treasure-trove; apparently he argued from +this that he had as good a right to it as any man[1367]. By this means +the rumour of “treasure-trove” reached the ears of the Duke of Norfolk, +and he determined that the government should be no loser. + +On 12 July Norfolk sent for all the parties to appear before him[1368]. +On 20 July the Vicar was a close prisoner, allowed to speak only to +those whom Norfolk appointed. The Duke had consulted Chaloner and +Babthorpe about the law of treasure-trove, and they agreed that unless +the Vicar could prove the money to be his, it was the King’s. Before +examining the witnesses Norfolk proposed to send the money to the King, +and then, if Holdsworth had too strong a claim to be denied, the Duke +would give him licence to sue for its restoration[1369]. It was easy to +guess the result of such an application. + +The witnesses proved quite conclusively that the money was the Vicar’s, +and that he had hidden it himself. There was no evidence that any part +of it had ever been treasure-trove. Norfolk’s council believed that the +money was really the Vicar’s because there were many crowns of five +shillings among the coins found in the pot, and this coin had come into +use very recently[1370]. Norfolk was vexed at this turn of the case, and +asked Cromwell for instructions. He collected all the Vicar’s money that +he could lay hands on and accused Holdsworth of cheating the revenue, +“living covetously like a man of £40 promotions,” when he could well +spend £200 a year[1371]. + +On 25 July Sir Henry Saville wrote to Cromwell on the Vicar’s +behalf[1372]. Holdsworth brought an action in the Court of Star Chamber +against Lacy, but the result is unknown[1373]. It is possible that the +government obtained for Holdsworth restitution of his plundered goods, +and at the same time robbed him of his fortune, but if this were so, the +Vicar was not ruined. On the contrary, he retained too much money for +his own safety, as in May 1556 he was murdered by thieves in the +night-time in the vicarage house[1374]. + +Norfolk was empowered to attend to the doctrine of the north as well as +its peace. He encouraged the various anti-papal preachers who were sent +there, such as Dr Layton and Dr Addison[1375], and suggested that the +Archbishop of York and the other principal ecclesiastics might not only +promote “such well-learned and also well-willed priests,” but also “find +others at their own charges continually to go about and preach.” If this +had been done before he thought “no such follies had been attempted as +hath been.”[1376] + +About the beginning of June Norfolk sent round circulars to all justices +of the peace and to the remaining monasteries, forbidding them to give +any relief to sturdy vagabonds. He said that the alms of the religious +houses had encouraged beggars, and that the justices were slack, but now +he intended so to deal with them that Cromwell would probably hear of +great numbers coming southward[1377]. + +On 3 June the good news of the Queen’s pregnancy was confirmed. Norfolk +was in York and gave orders for general rejoicings. The Te Deum was sung +in the afternoon and at night bonfires were lighted all through the +city. To increase the merrymaking Norfolk gave four hogsheads of wine +from his own cellar to be broached in different parts of the city for +all passers-by. + +York was in a ferment of preparation for the King’s visit; the +countryside had to prepare lodging and stabling for a large and +magnificent company. Two or three hundred extra beds were being made. +Fortunately the hay-harvest was good, or it would have been hard to +provide for the horses in the royal train[1378]. But all the +preparations were in vain. The King changed his mind. It is clear from +Norfolk’s letters that he had never really believed that Henry would +come, and had been only partly convinced by his repeated assurances. On +12 June the King sent the Duke his reasons for delaying his visit to the +north until another year. The reasons were many and ingenious, such as +his reluctance to leave the Queen at this critical period, and the +delicate state of foreign affairs; but the real motive for delay, which +Norfolk was to keep strictly to himself, was the King’s physical +condition. His legs were worse, and his physicians advised him not to +travel in the heat of the year. As he could not come to pardon the north +in person, he would shortly send down “a personage of honour” with a +general pardon; Norfolk might announce this. The King graciously said +that he could not be better served than he was at present, but as the +Duke desired his recall so earnestly, he should soon receive it. The +King intended to establish a standing council and desired the Duke’s +advice as to its composition[1379]. + +This was the first explicit statement of the King’s intentions for the +future government of the north, but it was so vaguely worded that it did +not seriously clash with Norfolk’s ambition. The north might be ruled by +a council, but the council might be ruled by the King’s lieutenant. +Norfolk was still cautious. In his next letters, dated 16 June, he +thanked the King for the promise of release. If his master knew how ill +he had been he would not wonder at his desire “to be out of this cold +country, where hath been two days this week great frosts in the morning, +with the most cold weather that ever I saw in such a time of year.” For +the Council of the North he thought the King should either send down a +lieutenant or make the Bishop of Durham president; he did not recommend +either of the northern earls. For the councillors he recommended Sir +Thomas Tempest, Sir Marmaduke Constable, Sir William Evers, Sir Ralph +Ellerker, and Sir Brian Hastings. Dr Magnus was growing old and “less +able every day.” Norfolk spoke very highly of Babthorpe, Chaloner and +Bowes, but they were badly paid. The Duke was heartily glad to hear that +the King was sending a pardon to put despair out of “foolish, fearful +heads.” He asked that ten or twelve pardons might be sent him, with +blank schedules attached, in which he could insert, with the advice of +his council, the names of those to be excepted from the pardon[1380]. + +At this time Border affairs loom large in Cromwell’s memoranda and in +the proceedings of the Privy Council, filling the place previously +occupied by the northern insurgents. Lists of members proposed for the +Council of the North, and of officers and pensioners on the Borders were +drawn up, and amended, and drawn up again, until it is hard to say which +is merely a “device” and which a final order[1381]. + +The repairs of Berwick and Sheriffhutton were proceeding as fast as lack +of money would allow[1382]. Sir Thomas Clifford was at feud with Lionel +Grey, the porter of Berwick[1383]. Norfolk wished the King to have them +reconciled, as Grey was a man whom Sir William Evers, the deputy warden +of the East Marches, could not spare[1384]. + +On the Middle Marches Sir Reynold Carnaby had succeeded the murdered +Roger Fenwick in the dangerous office of Keeper of Tynedale. Norfolk +disliked Carnaby, who was a creature of Cromwell’s, and said sneeringly +“that by hearing say he is more than half weary of his being in these +parts.” On 26 June Norfolk expected the Council of the Marches to wait +on him at Sheriffhutton. He intended to “lay it sore to them” that their +country was no stronger against the Scots raiders of Liddesdale, “which +weekly doth run upon Carnaby’s offices.”[1385] + +The Duke was investigating the circumstances of Roger Fenwick’s murder. +The three murderers, John Charleton, Rinian Charleton and John Dod, fled +to Scotland and were never captured. Lionel Grey accused Edward +Charleton, Cuthbert Charleton, John Heron of Chipchase, George Heron his +son and John Heron of the Hall Barns his kinsman, as instigators of the +murder[1386]. This accusation was very satisfactory to Norfolk, as the +Charletons and Little John Heron of Chipchase were already wanted by the +government for their share in the rebellion, but it would be safer and +less awkward to punish them nominally for the murder. Little John Heron +was captured and sent to London, where he was imprisoned in the Fleet. +Heron of the Hall Barns fled to Scotland. George Heron appeared before +Norfolk, but he established his innocence so clearly that the Duke wrote +to Grey to require proof of the Herons’ guilt[1387]. On 7 July Lionel +Grey brought to the Duke “one of the men that hath detected” the part +played by the Herons in Fenwick’s murder[1388]. This sounds as if there +were other witnesses, but later Jerry Charleton alias Topping is +described as “the only accuser of the Herons,”[1389] and his character +was so bad that in the end his evidence was discredited[1390]. At +present, however, it was considered sufficient, but the Charletons could +not be captured by force or stratagem[1391]. + +Cromwell suggested that John Heron of Chipchase might be sent north to +stand his trial for Fenwick’s murder. Norfolk replied on 20 July that he +must not be sent north until the time was ripe. If he did not know that +he was accused of the murder, he must be led to believe that he would +soon be set free. If he had already been charged with it, he must be so +closely imprisoned that he could send no word of warning to his son +George or his son-in-law Cuthbert Charleton. It was important to lull +the suspicions of the Charletons, for it was quite impossible to capture +them while they were on the alert. Their own country was almost +impenetrable, and if they were attacked with fire and sword they had +only to cross the hills to Liddesdale[1392]. + +On 27 August Norfolk was still hoping to apprehend Edward and Cuthbert +Charleton and George Heron. As to Little John Heron, Norfolk directed +Cromwell as follows: + + “Which John I require your good lordship may be secretly conveyed + hither and so delivered to the officers of my house, to be by them + conveyed to me at Newcastle, to be ordered according to justice. I + would he should be here on 20 September, and conveyed with a hood on + his head, and so secretly kept by the way that no man should know him + unto [_until_] his deliverance; which would also be in the night + because I have many pledges of Tynedale and Reedsdale here. For an it + were known he were here, I should neither take his son nor the others + that I would have. And if it be not known in the Fleet whither he + shall go, but conveyed in the night, the better.”[1393] + +On 17 September Norfolk held an assize at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He made +George Heron foreman of the inquest, and the three murderers were +condemned in their absence. George Heron did his part, not suspecting +that Norfolk, who showed him such a fair countenance, was planning to +convict himself and his father of the same crime. George offered to go +home to Tynedale and arrest an arrant traitor. Norfolk sent him off with +the comment, “If he do I shall have in my hands two false harlots.” The +Duke intended to arrest George Heron on his return, and to seize his +father’s house, goods and lands for the King’s use. The news from +Tynedale was that Cuthbert Charleton was dead[1394]. + +At the next assizes, on 26 September, John Heron and Edward Charleton +were indicted in their absence as accessories to the murder of Roger +Fenwick. John Heron had not been sent north, and there was no evidence +against George Heron, but nevertheless the latter was arrested and +imprisoned[1395]. The Charletons were outlawed, and the Keeper of +Tynedale carried on a long guerilla war against them, in which the +Charletons, having allies in Scotland, were on the whole +successful[1396]. + +Little John Heron of Chipchase was never sent north with a hood over his +face to be hanged. He was called before the Privy Council and convinced +the King of his loyalty and worth. In 1539 he rode home in triumph as +Constable of Harbottle, with a pension in his pocket[1397]. Edward +Charleton was pardoned in 1539; even John Heron of the Hall Barns +received mercy and was employed in carrying letters of importance to the +north[1398]. At length, in August 1540, Little John Heron was offered +the post of Keeper of Tynedale. He refused, unless he were given +Reedsdale as well, and he was given both[1399]. Thus he completely +superseded his old enemy Sir Reynold Carnaby. Sir Thomas Percy was +avenged so far as vengeance lay in Little John Heron’s power. The wily +mosstrooper was one of the few men who discovered the length of Henry +VIII’s foot. + +After this digression it is necessary to return to Norfolk at +Sheriffhutton Castle. On 2 July 1537 Sir Cuthbert Radcliff, Thomas +Carnaby, Cuthbert Shaftoe and George Heron waited on the Duke, and +declared the true state of Northumberland. The raiding was chiefly the +work of Liddesdale, reinforced by English outlaws. Norfolk daily +expected an answer from the King of Scots to his repeated complaints of +the protection which English outlaws received in Scotland. Sir John +Widdrington was trying to capture certain Scots thieves in England who +would be useful as exchanges. The Northumbrians convinced Norfolk that +Tynedale had not done nearly as much harm as was reported, but no +restitution had been made as yet[1400]. + +The West Marches were reorganised about the beginning of July. Sir +Thomas Wharton was made deputy warden, in spite of Norfolk’s advice to +the contrary. He was also made steward of the abbey of Holm Cultram and +the priories of Carlisle and Wetherall. Under him there were four +commissioners. Sir Thomas Wentworth became captain of Carlisle, and +thirty-three gentlemen of those parts received patents as the King’s +pensioners. All these commissions and patents, with the oaths for the +different officials, were dated 28 June[1401]. They were first sent to +Norfolk, who forwarded them on 3 July to Wentworth, together with a +summons to all the gentlemen to meet him at York, where he was going to +witness Aske’s execution on 12 July[1402]. + +Norfolk thought that the arrangements for the West March were better +than those for the other two. He wished to call Lord Dacre and Wharton +before him and “knit them in amity.” Dacre’s friendship was far more +important to the new Warden than that of the Earl of Cumberland, who had +little influence with the marchmen. The prickers of Gilsland were always +ready at Dacre’s word. Unruly though they were, he kept them in awe, and +he was respected even in Tynedale and Reedsdale[1403]. When Dacre was +Warden he had been both cruel and partial, sending word to his favourite +ill-doers to fly when he intended to make a raid; yet he was very +popular among the marchmen. + +In spite of his general approbation, Norfolk as usual criticised the +King’s appointments[1404]. The Duke constantly endeavoured to draw all +the patronage of the north into his own hands. The dictatorship of the +north would be within reach if every Border officer were the Duke’s man, +and owed his appointment to his master. Norfolk, being on the spot, +could often choose better men than the King, who was guided only by +report. Nevertheless, so long as the Duke remained in the north, the +King would not reverse his decisions. After Norfolk’s departure, the +inefficient were replaced by more capable officers, but in the meanwhile +he grumbled in vain. The King would not allow him to make any promotions +on his own authority. + +Norfolk was still urgently petitioning for leave to ride south. He was +ailing and described all his symptoms to Cromwell at great length. +Cromwell advised him to offer to stay longer in the north; the King had +promised that he should come home at Michaelmas. Norfolk replied from +Leckonfield on 8 July that if he stayed in the north until the cold +weather began he would die. He was ready to serve the King to the death +anywhere else; “but undoubtedly if I should know his pleasure to be to +command me to remain here, I am sure I should never have one merry day +in my life, and would incontinent determine myself for another world.... +I may well perceive I have some back friends that thinketh long to hear +that I am out of this world.” The north was now in such good order, that +he considered there was no need for his presence; a lieutenant with a +good council would be enough[1405]. + +Sir Thomas Tempest, who had been attending on Norfolk, throughout his +northern progress[1406], wrote to Cromwell on 10 July. He said that +Norfolk had shown him Cromwell’s letter which advised him to remain in +the north. To obey would certainly endanger Norfolk’s life during the +winter; nevertheless the Duke ought not to be recalled at once, because +he was so much loved and feared throughout the north. “Although these +parts be now well stayed, their late perversity should be noted, and, as +many men of blood and well befriended have justly suffered, it is to be +feared their friends are not well contented.” Tempest suggested that +Norfolk should stay until the end of October, and then leave a council +with a good president to carry on the work until Easter, when the Duke +could return for the summer[1407]. Tempest wrote to Bishop Tunstall, who +was then in London, to the same effect. Tunstall was the proposed +president of the new council. Tempest urged that the Bishop knew well +the need there was for Norfolk in the north[1408]. + +These two letters were obviously inspired by Norfolk, and yet they were +very different in effect from his own. Norfolk never wishes to see the +north again; yet Tempest suggests that the Duke should return in the +spring. Norfolk says that the country is quiet and can do without him; +Tempest, that “the country is not so clearly reduced to all goodness +that he should be taken from these parts.” All this was the next move in +Norfolk’s game. He did not wish to bring the country into such order +that the King could do without him. He hoped, on his return to the +south, to be followed by a stream of petitions to the King that he might +be sent back; even a minor disturbance would not be amiss. If Norfolk +could prove to Henry that he was indispensable, he would be in a +position to make terms. He had declared that he would not live in the +north for all Northumberland’s lands, but the King could test this by +experiment. Henry, on the other hand, meant to keep the Duke in the +north until it was reduced to order, but not a minute longer. When he +did recall Norfolk, he had no intention of sending him back. Norfolk was +told that he should be recalled before the cold weather set in. No word +was said of a new mission in the spring, but he protested that he was +immensely grateful. + +The Earl of Wiltshire’s minstrel had composed a song about Norfolk, +which he said had received the Duke’s approval. The inference is that +the song was in praise of true noble blood and predicted its triumph +over upstarts. Norfolk promised Cromwell so to punish the minstrel that +he would be afraid to sing such songs again[1409]. + +Norfolk was impatient for the arrival of a general pardon. He advised +that it should not extend beyond 20 February 1536–7. The murder of +Fenwick and the welcome of the King of Scots both took place after that +date, and consequently those who were involved in either would not be +able to claim the benefit of the pardon thus limited. Norfolk sent about +fifteen names to be excepted, and asked that room should be left for +himself and his council to insert a few more. Those whom he mentioned +were: Wilson and Woodmancy of Beverley, Marshall parish clerk of +Beswick, Waflin and Leache of Lincolnshire, Bradford and Paris monks of +Sawley, Roger Hartlepool monk of Jervaux, Helaigh canon of Coverham, +Edward Middleton, Henry King and Simon Marshal of Masham, Each friar of +St Robert’s of Knaresborough, Nicholas Musgrave, a friar of Appleby, +John Priestman of Lillesdale Hall, John Priestman son of William +Priestman of Helnesley [Helmsley?], Dr Marmaduke Walby, Towneley +chancellor of the Bishop of Carlisle, and the Prior of the White Friars +of Doncaster[1410]. Most of these men had fled to Scotland, but the +three last-named were prisoners in the Tower. + +In Scotland James pursued an anti-English policy without actually +provoking a breach of the peace. Norfolk wrote of him on 3 July “he doth +keep so small an house that there is but only six messes of meat allowed +in his house, and the Queen his wife not like to escape without death, +and that not long unto as I am informed by divers ways.”[1411] The poor +young Queen died before 24 July[1412] of consumption, not, as might be +supposed from Norfolk’s letter, of starvation. + +Sir Thomas Clifford’s spies reported that James “doth not use nor give +himself to any princely pleasure, like as he heretofore hath been +accustomed, but continually yet doth go about framing his ordnance in +most secret wise.” He had paid several midnight visits to Dunbar, and +Tantallon was prepared for war. Clifford contrasted with these +preparations the destitute condition of Berwick[1413], but as a matter +of fact the town was being provisioned and the fortifications repaired. + +It was thought possible that James might change his policy on the death +of his French wife. It was reported that he was hesitating between a +renewal of the matrimonial alliance with France and an application to +England for the hand of Mary[1414]. On 2 August James came as far as +Dunbar with David Beaton, Abbot of Arbroath, whom he was about to +despatch on a diplomatic mission first to Henry and then to Francis. +Henry was making a short progress to Ampthill, and intended to receive +the ambassador there[1415]. + +Norfolk prepared to join the King at Ampthill to assist in the +negotiations with Scotland, but on 7 August he received definite orders +that he was not to leave Yorkshire. He replied with the bitterest +complaints of his treatment, and indeed he had a right to expect better +usage[1416]. Henry must have felt that he might slight the Duke too much +as he tardily consented, and Norfolk joined him at Grafton on 15 August, +to give his advice upon the Scots negotiations and on the appointment of +the Council of the North[1417]. The Abbot of Arbroath promised that all +the English fugitives in Scotland should be exchanged for Scots rebels +in England, but his mission did not otherwise give satisfaction, as he +was going to France to arrange a new French marriage for James, who was +in perfect accord with Francis[1418]. + +Norfolk and Henry together determined that the president of the Council +of the North should be Bishop Tunstall of Durham[1419]. Tunstall was +very unwilling to undertake the arduous task. He protested that he was +too old to be fit for anything but teaching and preaching. The people +hated him, and whatever punishment he inflicted would be imputed to +private malice, which would bring discredit on the King’s justice. He +was neither powerful enough to punish disobedience nor rich enough to +keep up the hospitality which would be expected of him, and this would +lead evil-doers to despise and mock the King’s authority[1420]. His +objections went for nothing. Henry had decided that he was the most +suitable man for the post, and Norfolk probably hoped that Tunstall +would prove so complete a failure that he himself would have to be +reappointed. Tunstall was ordered to prepare himself and to forget his +displeasure against Robert Bowes[1421], who had plundered his palace at +Bishop Auckland during the rebellion[1422]. + +Norfolk’s visit to the south was a short one[1423]. He was back at +Sheriffhutton on 27 August. Now that the Council of the North was an +established fact he was impatient to be gone. It remained to be seen +whether he could ever compass his return. On 27 August he wrote “I +am ... very desirous to bring Tynedale, before my departing hence, in +better order than it is,”[1424] but the task proved too long and he left +it unaccomplished. + +On the West Marches Sir Thomas Wharton was on the whole a successful +warden, and under his rule there was at least a very fair appearance of +regular justice, both on the Marches and in Cumberland, although this +did not mean that there was any lack of such incidents as inspired the +Border ballads[1425]. + +The Middle Marches were a very different affair. Norfolk was longing to +make his name terrible in the district which had treated his authority +with such light-hearted contempt. He wished to arrange that James V +should make a descent on Liddesdale at the same time as he attacked +Tynedale. The Abbot of Arbroath held out some hope that his master would +consent to this, but on 8 September James replied to Norfolk that he +would give his wardens such charge that a simultaneous raid of this sort +would be quite unnecessary[1426]. Consequently the Duke was obliged to +undertake the Borders without James’ help. + +While Norfolk awaited James’ answer at Sheriffhutton he busied himself +in reconciling the feuds of various Yorkshire gentlemen. Among others +Sir Henry Saville came to an agreement with “all his neighbours and +sisters” and might prove a good servant. On 5 September Norfolk was +suffering from a cold in the head. He wrote to Cromwell, and after +regaling him with his symptoms in great detail, proceeded to ease his +temper by abuse of his subordinates. According to his account the whole +of the north was in a state of Utopian peace except Tynedale and +Reedsdale, for which the Keeper and the warden were responsible. +“Widdrington would fain do well, but surely it is not in him. Carnaby is +so feared of his person that he doth nothing but keep the house. Men +doth much doubt of his hardiness having yet shown no part of manhood +since his coming hither. I would they were both in Paradise, so other +good were in their rooms; for by their defaults I shall be enforced, as +soon as I shall be able to travel, to ride to those cold parts which I +fear shall not be without some danger. And yet had I rather to adventure +the same, than to have the continual crying out of the poor people that +I have to come thither.”[1427] + +Norfolk rode to Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 14 September, and found that no +restitution had been made for plunder taken during the rebellion, and +that there were under a dozen offenders to be tried. In fact all the +Border was very reluctant to deliver thieves to the law[1428], not from +mercy nor even from fellow-feeling, although the gentlemen of the +country were not much more honest than the reivers, but because when a +man was hanged his kinsmen would never forget the feud. The blood feud +was the weapon which enabled the mosstrooper to keep up his war against +the world; it was his last and best protection. The King’s deputy warden +might take a thief red-handed. If he brought him to the gallows many +things would follow. The deputy warden’s cattle would never be safe at +the pride of the moon; his hay-stacks and barns would mysteriously take +fire; wherever he went he would never ride safely, for on the open moors +an arrow might fly from a whinbush, and in the streets of a town a man +might lurch against him with a knife in his hand. It generally happened +that the warden let the thief go free. + +Norfolk was very angry at this state of affairs. The blood feud made no +difference to him, as he was leaving the north so soon. He made further +complaints to the King of Carnaby and Widdrington, and proposed others +to be promoted in their places. If Tynedale and Reedsdale refused to +make restitution on the 20th and 21st September, “I will be busy with +them.” Reedsdale was not expected to give trouble, and if the men of +Tynedale proved more obstinate Norfolk would make a descent upon their +houses, burn them to the ground, set their standing corn ablaze, and +when the people were driven into the hills, he would lay garrisons “to +defend their malice,” whenever they wickedly tried to get something to +eat[1429]. + +The King answered on 18 September in one of those letters which must +have been such a trial to his servants. He remained blandly determined +that “whosoever kick against it” he would be served by the men of his +own choice and no others. As to Tynedale, he sent orders very unlike his +usual instructions. Clemency was to be shown. He expected Norfolk to +reform, not to destroy[1430]. It must be put to Henry’s credit that if +he had raised, for his own purposes, a breed of mosstroopers more savage +than their fathers, he did not like them to be slaughtered wholesale, +though it is doubtful whether this was due to some faint sense of his +own responsibility or merely to an anticipation of the next war with +Scotland. + +Norfolk held two sessions at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, one on Monday 17 +September, the other on Wednesday 26 September. Only nine thieves were +executed altogether, but both Tynedale and Reedsdale were at last +induced to make restitution or to put in sufficient pledges for +it[1431]. Norfolk said with natural pride that he had redressed above a +hundred wrongs since he came to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and that he would +leave the country better contented[1432]. He had “swept the houses so +clean” that the Bishop of Durham and his Council would find little to +do[1433]. The King fully approved of all his proceedings and sent him a +letter of thanks[1434]. + +On 28 September 1537 Norfolk left Newcastle-upon-Tyne[1435]. He was at +Sheriffhutton on 4 October[1436]. On 6 October he started on his journey +southward[1437]. His long mission was over. The government of the north +passed into other hands. + +Instead of the old expedient by which the supreme authority was +conferred on a powerful nobleman, Henry had resolved that the north +should be governed by a council. Although Cromwell was a warm advocate +of this system, he cannot be given the credit for its invention. +Government by council was a favourite Tudor device from the days of +Henry VII onwards. It was said that in 1640 over a third of England was +ruled by various councils, offshoots of the Privy Council[1438]. + +Sufficient evidence has already been given to prove that the north +required a better system of government than it had hitherto enjoyed. The +Pilgrims at Pontefract had proposed that it should have adequate +parliamentary representation, that parliaments should sometimes be held +there, that law courts should be established at York competent to deal +with all but the most important cases, and that in general the interests +and welfare of the north should be treated as of equal importance with +those of the south. + +Instead of this, the King resolved to treat the north as a conquered +province. It was placed under a form of government in which there was no +representation and from which there was no appeal. If the Council of the +North was to work at all, its decisions, however unjust, must be upheld +by the central government. The north had already undergone an +experimental foretaste of this method of rule, and had hated and +protested against it[1439], but the country was to groan under the +Council of the North for another hundred years, until released by the +Great Civil War. Yet the Council was not more autocratic than the Privy +Council itself, and such partial success as it had in enforcing law and +order was some compensation for the fact that it was entirely opposed to +the independent spirit of the people. + +Most of the new council’s members had been leaders in the Pilgrimage; +such were Sir Ralph Ellerker, Sir Thomas Tempest, Robert Bowes, William +Babthorpe and Robert Chaloner. They were capable, ambitious men, bound +to make their way upwards. They were not insincere Pilgrims, but the +rising failed and they turned their energies to the King’s service as +the only course left open to them. Norfolk’s business was to conciliate +them and win them over, and he had succeeded: “all these men have their +price.” They had been willing to risk their lives for a cause, but +having escaped, they would not sacrifice their careers. As members of +the Council of the North, they helped to keep in subjection the country +whose liberties they had so lately borne arms to defend. + +Norfolk and his council in 1537 may be regarded as the forerunners of +the new council, and the King’s lieutenant, when there was one, was +always the president of the Council of the North. + +The advantages which the King derived from the establishment of the +Council were obvious. It was small and could work easily and +effectively, for although a large number of members were sometimes +appointed, there were only five salaried members, who, with the +president and vice-president, were obliged to attend and were competent +to transact business[1440]. Its members were chosen and dismissed by the +King; there was no danger that the office would become hereditary or +that individual members might be too powerful. It was therefore safe to +trust them with very extensive powers. + +The Council of the North had jurisdiction over the whole of the five +northern counties, Northumberland, Durham, Westmorland, Cumberland and +Yorkshire. Privileged districts such as the Palatinate of Durham were +entirely abolished. The Council was authorised to hear and determine all +offences connected with unlawful assemblies and breaches of the peace, +and all actions concerning property and debts[1441]. Its duties were to +aid the ecclesiastical authorities in the repression of papists and +heretics, to maintain uniformity and good morals, to protect +agriculture, to defend the poor against the rich, to supervise the +justices of the peace[1442], and to provide for the defence of the +Border. “It was empowered to inflict almost any penalty short of death,” +and although in cases of difficulty it might appeal for advice to the +Privy Council, there was no appeal for suitors from its decisions[1443]. +It administered justice according to either the law of the land or the +discretion of its members[1444]. The Council also held sessions, oyer +and gaol delivery, heard indictments for murder and felony, and executed +felons. “In this respect their powers exceeded even those of the Star +Chamber.”[1445] In short, the Council exercised all the powers +previously held by Norfolk. + +Before 15 October 1537 the Council of the North held its first meeting +at York[1446]. It was composed of Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of Durham, +the president; Sir Thomas Tempest; Sir Ralph Ellerker; Sir Marmaduke +Constable the elder; Robert Bowes; William Babthorpe; Richard Bellasis; +Robert Chaloner; John Uvedale; Sir William Evers; and Thomas Fairfax, +the King’s serjeant-at-law[1447]. Robert Holgate, Bishop of Llandaff and +prior of Watton, also took part in its deliberations[1448]. The officers +of the court consisted of the Lord President, the Vice-President, four +or more learned Councillors, the Secretary, the King’s Attorney, two +Examiners, one Registrar, fourteen Attornies, one Clerk of the +Attachments, two Clerks of the Seal, one Clerk of the Tickets, one +Serjeant-at-Arms, one Pursuivant, ten Collectors of Fines, two +Tipstaves[1449]. + +The first report of the Council of the North has not been preserved, but +a letter from Tunstall to Cromwell, written at the same time (15 +October), probably gives the information which was contained in it. Wide +as the powers of the Council were, the members were not satisfied. They +found that they had no power to levy men in order to enforce their +precepts; the gentlemen had all sworn to levy none save at the King’s +command. The Council referred the matter to the King, “considering +therewith that fire is more easily quenched in the spark than in the +flame.” They also referred two minor points to the King; they wished to +know what seal they should use, and they requested that the decrees of +the Duke of Richmond’s late council might be sent to help them in their +decisions[1450]. + +Finally they wished for instructions concerning the little heirs of the +house of Percy[1451]. It was now represented by Sir Ingram Percy, who +was dying by inches in the Tower, and Sir Thomas Percy’s two sons. The +Dowager Countess had been arrested by Sir Brian Hastings in February +1536–7. Her goods were seized and inventoried, but they were worth +little, even the plate being valued at “an hundred pounds or very easy +more.” She had few jewels and robes for a lady of her position. Hastings +good-naturedly wrote to Cromwell in her favour[1452]. Before the +beginning of October she had been released, her lands and goods were +restored to her, and she was living at Catton in Yorkshire[1453]. + +The Percy estates were viewed by the King’s surveyor Robert Southwell in +August[1454]. The government kept a careful eye on the natural heirs of +all this wealth, Sir Thomas Percy’s sons Thomas and Henry. On 8 July +Norfolk wrote: “As to Sir Thomas Percy’s children, I have entreated good +Sir Thomas Tempest to take them into his custody; they being at this +time in the Bishopric within two miles of his house; and have promised +him to have their costs paid for.”[1455] Sir Thomas soon grew weary of +his charge. Tunstall wrote on 15 October that Sir Thomas still kept the +children at Norfolk’s command; but “his house is not strong but very +weak, and within sixteen mile of Tynedale, no town betwixt, nor other +obstacle than the river of Tyne when the water is risen; for at low +waters there be two fords that every man may pass, by which the thieves +do much annoy our country. I know this to be true by experience, for I +have ridden the same way. He desireth much to be rid of the custody of +them, and demandeth of me licence to be absent for the keeping of them; +which reasonably I cannot deny and yet his presence were very necessary. +Some other place more within the country were more meet than his house, +and the children be young and must be among women.”[1456] The Council +must have feared that Sir Thomas Percy’s old friends the reivers of +Tynedale might carry off his children. Permission was given to place +them wherever it was thought best[1457]. + +With the fall of the house of Percy the old order of things ended. The +new began with the Council of the North. There is this excuse for Bowes +and the other Pilgrims who served on the Council; they probably believed +that they were saving the country from the Duke of Norfolk’s despotism. +Norfolk never realised his dream of a northern dictatorship. It was +improbable from the first that he would ever be able to force Henry to +concede him such a position, and it is quite incredible that the King +would have made such a grant willingly; but the northern gentlemen did +not know that. Norfolk’s pose was that of a faithful old servant who +reluctantly performed a disagreeable duty laid upon him by his master. +Partly because he needed Norfolk, and partly to gratify his love of +playing with a man’s hopes and fears, the King gave the Duke sufficient +public countenance to make this pose appear plausible. Bad as the +Council of the North might be, the gentlemen supported it, because they +believed it to be the lesser of two evils. Its tyranny was not so +unendurable as that of “this false Duke.” + +NOTES TO CHAPTER XXI + + Note A. The Border pledges were hostages. When the reivers were in + trouble they delivered up one of every surname or clan, in earnest of + their better behaviour. The object of the government was to obtain a + pledge who was sufficiently important to make his loss a matter of + anxiety to his surname. The object of the reivers was to induce the + government to accept as a pledge some man whom his friends did not + mind losing. Theoretically the life of the pledge was forfeit if his + people committed fresh offences, but the penalty seems very seldom to + have been exacted in full. The pledges were not usually kept in strict + confinement and were relieved by new comers every month or so. In the + case of disorders, however, the pledges were more strictly imprisoned, + and cases even occurred when they were half-starved until their + kinsmen were reduced to obedience. + + An example of the chaffering over pledges occurred on Tuesday, 17 + July, 1537. Sir Cuthbert Radcliff and Sir Reynold Carnaby called the + men of Tynedale to a meeting at Hexham for the restitution of spoil. + Edward and Cuthbert Charleton came in “under assurance,” and said that + they were willing to follow any order taken by the meeting. Edward + Charleton was anxious for the release of his pledge; he offered one of + his tenants in exchange, but Carnaby did not consider a tenant + sufficient. The other Charletons would neither pledge for nor with + Edward; they proposed to lay a separate hostage for themselves when + the first had returned. In this extremity Edward Charleton offered his + son, a boy of thirteen, whom Carnaby was ready to accept, as he + thought that his father would be loth to lose him[1458]. + + When Norfolk left the north the eight Border pledges whom he had kept + at Sheriffhutton Castle were removed to York, as no sufficient guard + remained at Sheriffhutton. In York the marchmen boarded at a + serjeant’s house and showed themselves every day to the + sheriffs[1459]. The Council of the North dared not imprison them for + fear “there would never more come in to be pledges.” Bishop Tunstall, + the president of the Council, objected to the presence of the pledges + in York. He was also annoyed because “two of the most active men of + all Tynedale” had come as pledges “to change and loose the others for + a season as has always been accustomed.” These two had promised + Norfolk to resist the inroads of the outlawed Charletons, and Tunstall + thought that they had come as pledges just before the full moon, when + they were most needed at home, to be “honestly ... quit of their + promise.” The Council of the North decided to move the pledges to + Newcastle-upon-Tyne, because “it is within eighteen miles of their + country, and coming thither they should learn no new ways, whereas now + coming hither [to York] so far from home, by exchange, they learn all + the byways of all countries adjoining unto them, which makes them more + bold to steal, when they know which way to escape with their + prey.”[1460] + + The system of hostages is very characteristic of the age. + Fundamentally unjust, it was a survival of primitive barbarism. It was + clear that the pledges at Newcastle-upon-Tyne or York could not be + guilty of outrages on the Border, but if the guilty could not be made + to suffer, the innocent must be punished. This system was peculiarly + congenial to Henry. He openly looked upon the mother and brothers of + Reginald Pole, for instance, as hostages for his good behaviour. When + he defied the King, it was only Henry’s extreme benignity which + prevented him from ordering the Cardinal’s relations to instant + execution. They were in the end put to death almost avowedly as a + means of making the Cardinal suffer. + + Note B. March treason was committed when an Englishman allied himself + with a Scot to attack another Englishman. Such crimes were + investigated and punished in the Wardens’ Courts. The penalty was + decapitation. Such a case was tried in October 1537 at Carlisle before + Sir Thomas Wharton, the King’s deputy warden[1461]. + + Note C. This letter is not included among the Letters and Papers of + Henry VIII. Raine’s reference is MSS Cotton. Caligula B iii, 241. + + + + + CHAPTER XXII + THE WHITE ROSE PARTY + + +With the leaders of the Pilgrimage died the spirit of active resistance +to Henry. The gentlemen and commons had struck their blow and failed. +There still remained the White Rose party at court. Its members had done +nothing during the rebellion. They only whispered together and exchanged +tokens and dreamed of better days. They were all under suspicion and +constantly watched by royal spies, warned against consorting together, +often in disgrace and banished from court. It was impossible that they +could be dangerous to Henry. The proof of this has already been given. +The Pilgrimage was the one good opportunity to carry out their +long-cherished plans. If the Marquis of Exeter had raised the west and +Lord Montague had raised Hampshire, the south would have been plunged +into turmoil and the northern Pilgrims would have been able to march on +London at leisure. Henry might have been forced to fly, and Mary +proclaimed queen. But, as a matter of fact, Exeter marched to join +Norfolk with all the force he could make; not one of the conservative +nobles raised a man to second the Pilgrims; and Cardinal Pole, in spite +of the Pope’s encouragement, made not the slightest effort to improve +the occasion. Their one chance slipped from the listless hands of the +White Rose party. They did not even know that it was lost. + +Why was Henry so bent upon the ruin of these very inefficient +conspirators that he actually told the French ambassador that he meant +to exterminate the house of Pole[1462]? It is true that he was very +angry with Reginald Pole; he regarded with jealousy all who could lay +claim to the blood royal; and he may have believed them to be more +dangerous than they were. He was already troubled by a disease so +painful as partly to account for the savage hatred of opposition which +became little less than madness towards the end of his life. But all +this is merely to say that he was a blood-thirsty tyrant, and that, +however useful as abuse, is not a really satisfactory explanation of any +human being’s actions. + +The answer to the problem is to be found in Henry’s superb belief in his +own divine right to rule. His admirers have tried to slur over the +ferocity of his treason laws by vague talk of “compelled severity” and +“temporary necessity.” It may be modestly suggested that there is +another explanation. There was no very pressing need for these laws, as +the old treason law was quite sufficiently severe, but Henry honestly +believed that they were just. To him treason was the blackest of all +crimes, not a mere political offence which might be committed by a +virtuous person with the highest motives, but a crime worse than murder +or perjury against the innocent. The man who dared to criticise the +title of Supreme Head of the Church was as guilty and as worthy of death +as those who resisted him in arms; he made no distinctions between those +who opposed him in thought, deed, or word. The catholic martyrs died for +their opinions. The Pilgrims died for maintaining their opinions with +their swords. The “Exeter Conspirators” died for a few careless +words—for a wish—for a dream of majesty. + +It is surprising that Pole’s family remained in England. They might have +fled to him at Rome, where their lives at least would have been safe. +They considered flight,—they often talked of it, but apparently they +could not bring themselves to face the results. The thought of becoming +a landless exile was intolerable to most English gentlemen. Lord +Montague might have chosen it rather than death, but he would not leave +the country until the danger was imminent, and then it was too late for +flight, for Henry struck swiftly. Sir Geoffrey Pole, with less to lose, +often planned to join Reginald, but Montague and other friends dissuaded +him, on the grounds that it would put the family in a worse position +than ever. The Poles were always expecting a change of policy and a +reconciliation with Rome. If this opinion was treasonable the King would +have had to execute half the nobility to root it out. So the doomed +family awaited the event, if not in security, at least with surprising +calmness, as they were not by any means unwarned. + +When Reginald Pole sent his book _De Unitate Ecclesiastica_ to Henry in +1536[1463], it was carried by an English servant who had followed his +fortunes, a man named Michael Throgmorton[1464]. He was of good family, +and a suitable person to be intrusted with such a delicate mission, as +he was both faithful and quick-witted. He did not undertake his errand +very willingly, for he had a natural fear that it would end in the Tower +rather than in his return to Italy. His apprehension was well founded. +Henry was furiously angry at Pole’s opinions and Throgmorton was +detained in London, in great danger, until January 1536–7. The country +was in open rebellion throughout the autumn, and his brother, Sir George +Throgmorton was in the Tower on a charge of spreading Aske’s +manifestos[1465]. + +In January came the news that Pole had been created a Cardinal[1466]. +Before he set out on his journey Throgmorton had begged that if this +promotion took place it might be kept secret until he had made his +escape from England[1467], but no attempt was made at secrecy, and +Throgmorton might well feel his head unsteady on his shoulders. +Nevertheless he lived to be one of the few men who could boast of +outwitting Cromwell[1468]. He played his cards well, declaring himself +completely out of sympathy with Pole and the King’s most loyal subject. +He spoke of his influence over his master, and undertook to use every +means to bring Pole back to England and his allegiance. He even +consented to enlist in Cromwell’s secret service, and became officially +the King’s chief spy on the traitor Pole. At the cost of such “crafty +and subtle conveyance” he obtained leave to return to Rome, and by 26 +January 1536–7 he was on his way thither with a light heart[1469]. He +had completely “bleared” Cromwell’s eyes, for he never had the least +intention of playing his master false. + +Throgmorton arrived at Rome on 13 February. He carried letters for the +Cardinal from the Privy Council, who professed themselves unspeakably +shocked at Pole’s ingratitude. But they offered to send certain wise men +to meet him in Flanders in order to argue him into a better frame of +mind, always provided that he came as a private person, without a +commission from the Pope[1470]. + +Throgmorton found his master dressed in his cardinal’s robes, and +delivered the letters together with credence to the same effect. He +admitted in his first report to Cromwell that his persuasions had as yet +been useless; “great men are not lightly persuaded and he especially.” +The writing of these reports must have been a great joy to +Throgmorton[1471]. + +Pole had been created a papal legate on 7 February, and he was about to +set out for Flanders[1472], in spite of the fact that the King had +refused, in such a case, to send anyone to meet him[1473]. Throgmorton +represented him in this as the well-meaning tool of the scheming court +of Rome; “let them mean as they will, he means all for the best, and to +the honour of God and his Church, without dissimulation, covetousness or +ambition.”[1474] Throgmorton hoped that Cromwell would not object to his +going with his master, for although he was the King’s man, he was loth +to leave Pole on account of his rare virtues and good life. He referred +the question to Cromwell, as no man could give better counsel in such a +case, because no man had more proved the profit and comfort of true +fidelity[1475]. One of Cromwell’s genuine spies recorded that Michael +Throgmorton had an open and simple-minded manner[1476]. It must have +been a very simple manner to carry off remarks of that sort. But for +some time Cromwell did not suspect that there was anything wrong. + +Cardinal Pole was about to move at last. The avowed purpose of his +legation was an attempt to help forward a general pacification, to +inquire into the spread of heresy, and to announce a general council. +Its real purpose was to arrange the affairs of England[1477]. According +to the news then current in Rome, Henry had given way to the Pilgrims, +and intended to hold a northern parliament in the spring. It was taken +for granted that this parliament would restore the Pope’s authority in +England, and it was essential that a papal legate should be present to +see that everything was done in the right way. Also it was only proper +that his Holiness should show his approval of “the manly and Christian +demonstration those people are making.” Pole never reproached himself +for his delay at the time of the insurrection. His one anxiety was to be +in time for the parliament. It was doubtful whether he would accomplish +this, as he was a very bad traveller. It occurred to him that the King +might be deceiving the Pilgrims, that he might intend no reform, but +sought only to quiet them and then to dispose of their leaders; in fact +that Henry might be doing the very thing that he was doing. Pole +suggested that if this were the case, someone, not himself, should be +sent to England to exhort the people, in the Pope’s name, to stand firm, +and that large sums of money should be ready in Flanders in case of +need[1478]. + +One of Pole’s last acts before starting was to answer the letter of the +Privy Council[1479]. He stated his case well, but the matter had gone +far beyond the reach of argument. Pole’s only justification was that he +was convinced he was right, and Henry’s only reply was that Pole was +hopelessly wrong. A meeting with Henry’s agents in Flanders could have +led to nothing more satisfactory, and perhaps Pole realised this when in +reply to the Council’s proposal he said that he would receive emissaries +only if they were sent to him as to a cardinal and a legate. + +At length Pole set out, but he was a long time on the journey. About 16 +April 1537 he was at Cambrai[1480], but he would not have reached even +that point so soon if all had gone as he hoped on the way. There was a +clause in the treaties between England and France that neither King +should receive or assist the rebel subjects of the other; in marked +contrast to the modern custom by which political offenders are +especially exempted from extradition treaties, this clause was held to +mean that a proscribed traitor who sought refuge in the other country +must be seized and given up to his own government. Francis I sent word +to Henry that Pole had entered his kingdom as legate[1481]. The French +King regarded the Pope as the Emperor’s ally, and was ready to +conciliate Henry at his expense, if he could do so without danger to +himself. Henry commanded his ambassador in France, Gardiner Bishop of +Winchester, to desire Francis to apprehend Pole and send him to England. +Gardiner obeyed, and Francis replied that Pole had entered his dominions +under safe-conduct, and that he could not arrest him, but he would send +him word to depart within ten days[1482]. + +Henry was not satisfied. He despatched Sir Francis Brian on 8 April to +demand Pole again and to remind Francis I that the treaty did not +recognise safe-conducts[1483]. The French King did not dare to quarrel +with Henry, but to apprehend Pole would have brought about an open +breach with the Pope. The King was with the army, and when on 10 April +Pole made his state entry as legate into Paris, he was met by a +gentleman of the King’s chamber, who informed him that he must press on +to Cambrai without seeing Francis[1484]. + +Henry was enraged at Pole’s escape. He blamed Gardiner and Brian for +lack of zeal and care. He bade them reproach Francis I with the legate’s +honourable reception[1485], and at the same time he sent by the hands of +John Hutton, his agent in the Netherlands, letters to the Regent of the +Netherlands, which adjured her on pain of breaking solemn treaties to +prevent Pole’s entry into the Emperor’s dominions. If he were already +over the borders, she must send him injunctions to leave within the time +specified by treaty[1486]. + +Pole took refuge in the independent archbishopric of Cambrai. He was +obliged to stay there all through May, though he was in considerable +danger. Henry, who had not forgiven Gardiner and Brian for the first +failure, wrote to them on 25 April: “And for as much as we would be very +glad to have the said Pole trussed up and conveyed to Calais, we desire +and pray you to consult and devise between you thereupon.” Could not +Brian secretly get together some men capable of such an enterprise? +Francis I himself suggested that his Italians might “snap up” the legate +some time when he was beyond the walls of the town[1487]. Pole was +careful to keep within the gates, for skirmishing parties were +constantly about, and he soon discovered that, in obedience to their +orders, Henry’s agents had surrounded him with “spies and +betrayers.”[1488] + +The days at Cambrai must have been very bitter to Pole. The French King +had ignominiously turned him out; the Regent of the Netherlands, though +more truly his friend, dared not ignore Henry’s protests[1489]. All hope +of a peaceful and honourable return to England had vanished. The +Pilgrims were in the Tower awaiting death, and Pole was within +measurable distance of joining them. He was told that 100,000 pieces of +English gold would be given to any man who brought him to England alive +or dead[1490]. + +Sir Francis Brian had undertaken the mission, and that one-eyed “minion” +declared that if the Cardinal returned to France he would kill him with +his own hand[1491]. All around Cambrai was the turmoil of a great +European war. The Emperor’s host was encamped round the city. The brave +Queen of Hungary, Regent of the Netherlands, who wore over her kirtle “a +jerkin of black leather with eyelet holes to wear harness upon,” vowed +that if Francis would await her forces but fifteen days she would show +him “what God may strength a woman to do.”[1492] Pole, who had been sent +to urge peace upon the combatants, was an embarrassment to all parties. +The Regent peevishly exclaimed that her enemy had sent him simply to +trouble her[1493]. Evil days had fallen on the ambassador of the Holy +See. + +It does Pole much honour that he was willing and even anxious to +persevere against all these discouragements. His chief hope was that he +might keep up the hearts of “these poor, good men” the commons of +England. He imagined that his presence near at hand might encourage them +to new endeavour. But he was too late, and the people of the north had +other and nearer sorrows to mourn than the decay of the Pope’s +authority. + +At last the Cardinal’s friends in Flanders determined to help him to a +place of safety, although they were hampered by the English King’s +constant threats that if Pole crossed the borders and were not arrested, +he would consider that the treaties were broken[1494]. They replied at +length that a legate was outside such treaties, and that they had gone +as far as possible to please Henry when the Regent refused to receive +the Cardinal. The Pope had especially recommended Pole to the care of +his fellow-cardinal Erarde de la Marck, the Prince Bishop of Liége, who +was the head of the Regent’s Council[1495]. The Bishop secretly offered +Pole a safe harbour in his own see, but he suggested that Pole should +travel in disguise, to which the legate, feeling that in his person the +dignity of the Apostolic See would be compromised, could not bring +himself to consent[1496]. During the last days of May an escort was +sent, which conducted him honourably, but without all the state that was +his due, through Flanders to Liége. Here he was received with pontifical +honours, provided with money, and lodged in “the old palace.”[1497] +“They take him there for a young god,” wrote Hutton scornfully to +Cromwell. + +One day a starving Englishman came to John Hutton and begged for alms. +His name was William Vaughan, and he had fled from England accused of +manslaughter. He told Hutton that he had begged for help from Henry +Phillips, an English student at Louvain who had betrayed Tyndale. +Phillips had offered to introduce Vaughan into Cardinal Pole’s service, +or rather into the service of Michael Throgmorton. Phillips said that +Throgmorton was about to sail secretly for England, carrying letters to +Pole’s friends hidden in a loaf of bread. Hutton seized this +opportunity. He gave Vaughan money, and promised him a pardon and +further reward if he would contrive to sail with Throgmorton; as soon as +they reached England Vaughan must see that Throgmorton was +arrested[1498]. + +Vaughan set out for Liége with an uneasy conscience, but beggars cannot +be choosers[1499]. He went to Throgmorton, who regarded him with +suspicion. It was so common, however, for one English exile to ask help +of another that Pole consented to speak to him. When Vaughan came into +his presence, the Cardinal said, “As I am informed, you be banished out +of your native country as well as I”; he added that he liked to meet a +Welshman, as his grandfather came out of Wales. Vaughan asked to be +taken into the Cardinal’s service, saying that he was destitute. Pole +answered that he had all the servants that he needed while travelling, +but if Vaughan would come to him again in Italy, he should have a place. +He gave the man a crown, and bade him go back to gather news[1500]. +These newsbearers must often have been puzzled to know whose spies they +were. + +On 10 June Pole wrote to Italy, still in good hopes that his mission +might prosper, although his life was in danger. He had discovered to +whom he was indebted for Vaughan’s visit[1501]. Other spies were sent by +Sir Thomas Palmer, the porter of Calais, and Pole heard that special +assassins had been despatched from England[1502]. Michael Throgmorton’s +expedition to England was abandoned, probably because the Cardinal +received news from his family about this time. The messenger was Hugh +Holland, who had formerly been in the service of Sir Geoffrey Pole, but +was now a merchant in the trade with Flanders. Some years before Holland +had secretly smuggled into France John Heliar, the vicar of East Meon +and rector of Warblington, a dependent of the Poles, who fled partly +because he wanted to study in Paris, but chiefly because he disliked the +King’s proceedings[1503]. Holland was still in communication with Heliar +and conveyed his correspondence[1504]. + +“After Easter” 1537 Holland heard that wheat was selling well in +Flanders, and arranged to carry a cargo across. Before he embarked Sir +Geoffrey Pole sent for him and said, “I hear say you intend to go into +Flanders. My brother, I hear say, is in those parts. Will you do me an +errand unto him?” + +Holland was quite willing, and Sir Geoffrey gave him the following +message: + +“I pray you commend me to my brother and show him I would I were with +him, and will come to him if he will have me; for show him the world in +England waxeth all crooked, God’s law is turned upso-down, abbeys and +churches overthrown, and he is taken for a traitor; and I think they +will cast down parish churches and all at the last. And because he shall +trust you, show him this token, and show him also that Mr Wilson and +Powell be in the Tower yet, and show him further that there be sent from +England daily to destroy him, and that much money would be given for his +head; and that the Lord Privy Seal said openly in the court that he, +speaking of the said Cardinal, should destroy himself well enough; and +that Mr Brian and Peter Mewtas was sent into France to kill him with a +hand-gun or otherwise as they should see best.” + +The day before Holland sailed Sir Geoffrey sent for him again and said, +“How sayest thou, Hugh, if I go over with thee myself and see that good +fellow?” + +Hugh replied, “Nay, sir, my ship is fully loaded, and the mariners be +not meet for this purpose.” + +“Well then, I pray you remember what I have said unto you, and fare you +well.” + +Holland sailed to Nieuport, sold his wheat, and went on to Cambrai, +where he expected to find the Cardinal, but Pole had already set out for +Liége. Holland overtook him at Alne Abbey. Throgmorton received the +messenger and questioned him. Hearing that he came from Sir Geoffrey, +Throgmorton went and told the Cardinal. After mass Holland was sent for +and found the Cardinal in the church. He delivered his message. Pole +said, “And would my Lord Privy Seal so fain kill me? Well, I trust it +shall not lie in his power. The King is not contented to bear me malice +himself, but provoketh other against me, and hath written to the French +king that he should not receive me as Cardinal or legate; but yet I was +received into Paris better than some men would.”[1505] + +They talked for a little while about English matters, and then the +Cardinal gave Holland the following messages: + +“Commend me to my lady my mother by the same token that she and I +looking upon a wall together read this, ‘_Spes mea in Deo est_,’[1506] +and desire her blessing for me. I trust she will be glad of mine also; +and if I wist that she were of the opinion that other be there, mother +as she is mine, I would tread upon her with my feet. Commend me to my +lord my brother by this token, ‘_In domino Confido_,’ and to my brother +Sir Geoffrey, and bid him meddle little and let all things alone.”[1507] +The Cardinal did not consider it expedient that either of his brothers +should join him. He bade them both tarry in England “and hold up yea and +nay.”[1508] + +It is impossible to avoid the thought that if the Cardinal had +encouraged Geoffrey in his proposed flight, instead of snubbing him, the +coming tragedy must have been, in part prevented. Lord Montague would +probably have been put to death in any case, but England would have been +spared the worst insult to humanity,—the degradation of the miserable +Sir Geoffrey, the horror of a brother’s betrayal by a brother, the agony +of their mother. Unluckily Sir Geoffrey Pole was not a very desirable +inmate for a Cardinal’s household. He was stupid and extravagant, timid +and untrustworthy. The Cardinal acted with his usual gentle selfishness. +He refused to undertake the disagreeable responsibility, and left Lord +Montague, in addition to all his other perils, to cope with this +unsatisfactory younger brother. + +Holland delivered all the messages to Sir Geoffrey Pole when he returned +to England. Sir Geoffrey forbade him to repeat them to the Countess of +Salisbury or to Lord Montague, because Montague “was out of his mind and +would show all to the Lord Privy Seal.”[1509] He did not mean that +Montague would betray the matter on purpose, but he was such a reckless +speaker that his tongue was sure to endanger the secret. This was all +the communication that Reginald Pole had with his brothers while he was +in Flanders, and it cannot be said to have seriously threatened the +throne of England. + +The Cardinal stayed quietly at Liége until the Pope summoned him back to +Rome[1510]. His Holiness needed him and his present position was doing +no good, nor was it very dignified. In August Pole prepared to set out +for Rome[1511]. In all his correspondence during his stay in Flanders +there is strangely little reference to the Pilgrims. The months during +which he was so near England were the very months of the King’s +vengeance. Pole must have known the English news, for Henry was eager to +spread reports of the terrible justice that he was doing. Yet in all +Pole’s letters not one of the northern leaders is mentioned by name. +Their effort for the Faith is spoken of only in the most general terms, +and though there are vague allusions to the King’s cruelty there is no +word of their trial and death[1512]. + +This silence effectually disposes of the idea that Pole had any share in +encouraging the rebellion, but when it is contrasted with the +wide-spread horror at the martyrdom of More and Fisher, and with the +admiration expressed for their constancy, the feeling arises that the +Papal court and the catholic clergy generally were guilty of a snobbish +callousness to the fate of less renowned but not less worthy upholders +of their cause. The King’s faithlessness to the insurgents was perfectly +well known abroad. Laymen were not so absorbed in his attack on the +Church as to overlook his treatment of his subjects[1513], but the court +of Rome would calmly have watched Henry grind Englishmen to powder so +long as he did not interfere with the Pope’s power and dignity. The Pope +considered only his relations with the King and ignored the people, +while his one chance of triumph lay in keeping his hold upon the nation, +as was done in Ireland. There were two reasons for this indifference on +the part of the Roman Church. In the first place, many of its +supporters, Pole among them, shrank from the charge of encouraging +rebellion. In the second, European statesmen in the spring of 1537 had +little thought to spare on the internal state of England. The war +absorbed the western states; in the south the Turks were threatening +Rome itself. + +Nevertheless Pole, an Englishman sent especially to watch English +affairs, might have shown more interest in the fate of the Pilgrims. On +21 July, 1537, a week after Aske was hanged at York, the Cardinal wrote +to the Pope to mention the suggestion of an English student at Louvain +that all the Church should fast and pray for the return of England to +the fold, and that certain days should be appointed for the fast. Pole +was much pleased with the thought, and believed that it would do more +good than any “censures or curses.”[1514] It would certainly be safer. + +The Cardinal left Liége on 22 August, “riding solemnly through the city, +giving his benediction to the people, with a cross borne before him and +other ceremonies.”[1515] Two days before Michael Throgmorton had written +his second and last report to Cromwell. Cromwell had commanded him to +return to England, and much of the letter was filled with explanations +as to why Throgmorton did not obey the summons. He protested that he +could serve the King much better if he stayed at Rome with his master. +He described the intended prayers for the unity of the Church, and added +that if the King did not shortly repent Pole would publish his book as a +defence against the charge of treason. Throgmorton insisted that his +master sought the King’s honour and wealth, and that everyone about him +marvelled that the King did nothing but try to procure his ruin[1516]. + +Cromwell’s first impulse on receiving this letter was to prevent Pole’s +return to Rome. A letter to Throgmorton was drafted which contained an +offer that, though the King felt nothing but contempt for all that the +Bishop of Rome could do against him, yet “to save him whom he hath from +his cradle nourished and brought up in learning,” he would send Dr +Wilson and another of his own chaplains to confer with Pole in +Flanders[1517]. Instructions for the chaplains were drawn up[1518], but +they never started on their mission. There is nothing to show the reason +which made Cromwell change his mind. Perhaps some fresh news came, or +perhaps he merely decided on second thoughts that it was impossible to +conciliate Pole, and the wider the breach with him became the better. +Dropping his mask, he for once wrote his real mind and sent the letter +after Throgmorton. It is too long to quote in full, and no mere extract +can do it justice[1519]. + +Cromwell began by denouncing the treasons of Pole and the treachery of +Throgmorton, whom he had taken for a faithful subject. “I might better +have judged that so dishonest a master could have but even such servants +as you are.... You could not all this time have been a spy for the King, +but at some time your countenance should have declared your heart to be +loyal. No! you and your master have both well declared how little fear +of God resteth in you, which, led by vain promise of promotion, thus +against his laws works treason towards your natural prince and country, +to serve an enemy of God, an enemy of all honesty, an enemy of right +religion, a defender of iniquity, a merchant and occupier of all +deceits.” How foolish was Throgmorton to try to defend this “silly +cardinal” from the name of traitor. All the world knew how well he +deserved it. “Now if those that have made him thus mad can also persuade +him to print his detestable book, where one lie leapeth in every line on +another’s neck, he shall be then as much bound to them for their good +counsel as his family to him for his wise dealing. He will, I trow, have +as little joy thereof as his friends and kinsfolk are like to take +profit of it. Pity it is that the folly of one brainsick Pole, or, to +say better, of one witless fool, should be the ruin of so great a +family. Let him follow ambition as fast as he can, these that little +have offended (saving that he is of their kin) were it not for the great +mercy and benignity of the prince, should and might feel what it is to +have such a traitor to their kinsman.” Let him bring forth his book. He +is not out of reach of the King’s “justice” even in Italy. “Amongst all +your pretty news these are very pleasant, that the Bishop of Rome +intendeth to make lamentation to the world and to desire every man to +pray that his old gains may return home again.... I have done what I may +to save you. I must, I think, do what I can to see you condignly +punished. God send you both to fare as ye deserve—either shortly to come +to your allegiance, or else to a shameful death.”[1520] With this +blessing hard on his heels Pole began his journey back to Rome. His +first legation was ended. + +The White Rose party in England had done nothing to help the Pilgrims. +It would have been well for them if they had said as little; and yet the +words that were afterwards objected against them were sometimes clearly +innocent, sometimes just touched with disaffection to the +government,—very seldom coming even under the most stringent treason law +ever enforced in England. At the time of the rebellion a friend went to +see Sir Geoffrey Pole at his house at Lordington, and found him +mustering men who were to march with him against the insurgents. + +“I must go northwards,” said Sir Geoffrey, “but I will shift for one +well enough, if they come to fighting—I will save one.” + +“Well, if you intend so,” returned his friend, “you were best to have a +good horse under you.”[1521] + +It seems almost incredible that this old, old soldier’s joke about +running away at the first shot should have been interpreted by Froude as +an avowed “intention of deserting in action, if an action was +fought—real, bad, black treason.”[1522] + +The Marquis of Exeter had gone northward to join Norfolk against the +Pilgrims. One day when his wife was sitting alone, Sir Edward Neville +came to her. He was an intimate friend of the family, and Lord +Montague’s brother-in-law. He greeted her with “Madam, how do you? Be +you merry?” + +She answered, “How can I be merry? My lord is gone to battle and he will +be one of the foremost.” + +“Madam, be not afeared of this,” said Sir Edward, “nor of the second, +but beware of the third.” + +“Ah, Mr Neville, you will never leave your Welsh prophecies,” replied +the Lady Marquis, “but one day this will turn you to displeasure.”[1523] + +Sir Edward’s mysterious words may have been treason, but they are even +more unintelligible now than they were to the Lady Marquis. Sir Edward +was much given to singing “merry songs”; in the Lady Marquis’s garden at +Horsley, where both Neville and Lord Montague were welcome guests, he +would sometimes add political stanzas to his songs, such as that he +“trusted knaves should be put down, and lords should reign one +day.”[1524] Perhaps it was on the same occasions that he used to abuse +the King “saying his Highness was a beast and worse than a beast.”[1525] + +One day at court Sir Edward drew Sir Geoffrey Pole aside and said, +“God’s Blood! I am made a fool amongst them, but I laugh and make merry +to drive forth the time. The King keepeth a sort of knaves here that we +dare neither look nor speak; and if I were able to live, I would rather +live any life in the world than tarry in the Privy Chamber.” Another +time he said, “Master Pole, let us not be seen to speak together; we be +had in suspicion; but it forceth not, we shall do well enough one day.” + +The little group of friends were constantly being warned against each +other. The King himself bade Sir Edward avoid the Marquis of Exeter. Sir +Edward told his friend, “I may no longer keep you company”; and the +Marquis quietly answered, “I pray Our Lord be with you,” and no +more[1526]. Every act of friendship among the suspected nobles was used +against them by Cromwell. A certain bearward of the Marquis was in +trouble about the end of the year 1537[1527]. He was “in prison for +treason” in the west country. His offence does not appear, but it cannot +have compromised the Marquis, as the affair was not mentioned at his +trial. The bearward was executed at Gloucester in February 1537–8[1528]. +Sir Edward Neville heard of his arrest and very naturally told the +Marquis “to look to it, as it was much against his honour.”[1529] Exeter +sent to Cromwell to inquire about the matter. The result was unexpected. +Cromwell told the King and a royal messenger was sent to Exeter to +charge him on his allegiance to declare who had told him of the +bearward’s apprehension. Exeter was astonished and alarmed that so +simple a matter should be taken so seriously. The messenger found him +“the most appalled man that ever he saw.” The Marquis answered at first +that he would “liever die than to disclose his friend, for it did not +touch the King.” Afterwards he tried to smooth the matter over by +producing a servant who said that he had heard about the bearward “in +Paul’s, but of whom he could not tell.”[1530] + +Exeter was a loyal friend. On another occasion, when Montague was in +trouble, he defended him in the Privy Council, and offered to be bound +“body for body” for him[1531]. The Marquis disliked the King’s policy, +but there is no proof that he ever engaged in treasonable practices. He +contented himself with grumbling occasionally to his friends, and for +the rest took things as they came. One day when Sir Geoffrey Pole was +riding to London he met the Marquis and turned back a little way to talk +to him. Exeter said that he had been compelled to give up his wardenship +of Windsor and to take abbey lands instead. + +“What!” cried Sir Geoffrey, “be you come to this point to take abbey +lands now?” + +“Yea,” said the Marquis, “good enough for a time; they must have all +again one day.” + +Exeter had on one occasion been obliged to receive Cromwell at Horsley; +he gave his guest “a summer coat and a wood knife.” At the first +opportunity he winked at Sir Geoffrey Pole and said, “Peace! knaves rule +about the King,” and then holding up and shaking his fist, “I trust to +give them a buffet one day.”[1532] It was very distasteful to a nobleman +of the blood royal to play host to the lowborn favourite, who was also +his personal enemy. + +A fortnight before Christmas 1536 a story was told at Stoke in Somerset +of a quarrel between the Lord Privy Seal and the Marquis of Exeter. It +was said that the Marquis had drawn his dagger on Cromwell, whose life +was saved only by his coat of fence. Cromwell ordered the Marquis to the +Tower, “but if he had been put there ... he would have been fetched out +again though the best of the realm had said nay.”[1533] There is no +reason to believe that this rumour had any foundation in fact; it bears +a marked resemblance to the story that Lord William Howard had +assassinated Richard Cromwell[1534]. Nevertheless it illustrates the +affection which the people of the west felt for Exeter. + +The Marquis hated the new learning and his servants sometimes quoted +their master’s opinions indiscreetly. His “yeoman of the horse” used to +go to a certain goldsmith in London for the garnishing of horse harness. +Protestantism was now spreading rapidly in London, especially among the +shop-keepers, and one day the yeoman of the horse found the goldsmith’s +wife reading the New Testament in English. + +“What do you with these new books of heresy in English?” he said to her. +“Well, well, there will a day come that will pay for all.” + +She asked what day that might be, and he answered, “The day will come +there shall be no more wood spent upon you heretics, but you will be +tied together, sacked, and thrown into Thames.” + +When she asked him who should do so, he said the Bishop of London +[Stokesley]. + +“We care not for the Bishop of London,” she cried, “thanked be God and +our gracious King; but would to God my lord your master would read the +Gospel in English, and suffer his servants to do the same.” + +On this the man affirmed with an oath, “If my Lord know any of his +servants either to have any of these books in English or to read any of +the same, they shall never do him any longer service.”[1535] + +Lord Montague was as little inclined to conspire as his friends, but he +was a careless talker. The cautious Lord Stafford, his brother-in-law, +said, “I like him not, he dare speak so largely.”[1536] It is evident +from his recorded sayings that he could not refrain from sallies against +Henry and his favourites. He was a man of boldness and wit and took +great pleasure in Sir Thomas More’s books[1537]. He thought that the +Pilgrimage had been mismanaged: “Twishe, Geoffrey ... the Lord Darcy +played the fool; he went about to pluck away the council. He should +first have begun with the head; but I beshrew them for leaving off so +soon.”[1538] He was indignant that the commons had been quieted with +false promises. “Time hath been when nothing was more surer to reckon +upon than the promise of a prince but now they count it no promise, but +a policy to blind the people, wherefore if the commons do rise again +they will trust to no fair promise nor words.”[1539] In happier +circumstances Montague thought his party might have helped the Pilgrims: +“If my lord Abergavenny (his father-in-law) were alive, he were able to +make a great number of men in Kent and Sussex.”[1540] + +Others of Montague’s sayings were that “Wolsey had been an honest man +had he had an honest master”[1541]; “the King and Cromwell were both of +one nature and what became of the nobility of the whole realm they cared +not so they might live themselves at their own pleasure”; “the King +gloried with the title to be Supreme Head next God, yet he had a sore +leg that no poor man would be glad of, and that he should not live long +for all his authority next God’s”; and that “the King and his whole +issue stand accursed.”[1542] + +These words and many others of the same sort were treason under the new +act. Montague “grudged” at this act, and thought that the Council should +devise a “charitable punishment” for treason “so that men should not die +therefore.” He had “seen more gentleness and benignity in times past at +the King’s hands than he doth nowadays.” Nor was it merely because the +new laws pressed hardly on his own party that he disliked them. If he +lived to see a better world, he hoped that Cromwell and the other +“knaves” should “have punishment for their offences without +cruelty.”[1543] + +Montague lived on intimate terms with his brother Sir Geoffrey, but they +had one estrangement when Sir Geoffrey entered the King’s service +against the advice of his brother and the Marquis. Montague tried to +dissuade him by the argument that the King “would go so far that all the +world would mislike him.” He himself had never loved the King from +childhood, and believed that Henry would some day go mad[1544]. Moreover +nothing was so dangerous as court favour; “the King never made man but +he destroyed him again, either by displeasure or with the sword.”[1545] +Nevertheless Sir Geoffrey made suit to the King and was received into +his service. Lord Montague told him bluntly that “they were flatterers +who followed the court and none served the King but knaves.”[1546] For a +time Sir Geoffrey saw little of his friends, who no longer talked openly +before him but treated him as if he had turned his back on his own +party[1547]. + +The news of Reginald Pole’s arrival in Flanders and the attempts on his +life put the whole court and especially the White Rose party in a +flutter. A lady named Elizabeth Darrell, who was certainly a great +gossip, told Sir Geoffrey that Peter Mewtas had gone to Flanders to get +rid of the Cardinal[1548]. It was on this occasion that Sir Geoffrey +sent the Cardinal the above-mentioned warning by Hugh Holland[1549]. +Later, forgetting their differences, he went to Lord Montague, whom he +found in his garden. + +“I hear our brother beyond the sea shall be slain,” he said. + +“No,” replied Montague, “he is escaped. I have letters.”[1550] These +letters must have contained news of the Cardinal’s safe retreat to +Liége. They were from someone who heard the court news, Mistress Darrell +or the Lady Marquis of Exeter. + +“By God’s blood,” swore Sir Geoffrey later to Mistress Darrell, “and if +he [Mewtas] had slain him [the Cardinal] I would have thrust my dagger +in him although he had been at the King’s heels.”[1551] He was not as +yet on his old terms with Montague, or he would surely have told him of +the message from the Cardinal, however much he feared his brother’s lack +of discretion. Hugh Holland’s errand was the only definite act of +treason committed by any of the Poles, and Sir Geoffrey alone was +responsible for it. The Cardinal’s danger was discussed in Lord +Montague’s household, where the servants believed that the Cardinal +“should do them all good one day,” and that “it were a [meet] marriage +betwixt my Lady Mary and the Cardinal Pole.”[1552] One of the servants, +named Morgan Wells, said openly that he “would kill with a hand-gun +Peter Mewtas or any other whom he should know to kill the Cardinal Pole, +and that he was going overseas for that purpose.” When he told this to +Lord Montague’s chaplain, John Collins, he was bidden to “be of good +mind and make a cross in his forehead.”[1553] + +In October 1537 Sir Geoffrey Pole went to court, “but the King would not +suffer him to come in.”[1554] Thus banished he went down to Bockmore, +his brother’s place in Buckinghamshire, and was received again into +Montague’s confidence. “Geoffrey, God loveth us well,” was Montague’s +greeting, “that will not suffer us to be amongst them; for none rule +about the court but knaves.”[1555] + +One night Montague told Sir Geoffrey “lying in bed” that he had just +dreamt that the King was dead. “And now,” quoth he, “we shall see some +ruffling and bid Mr Cromwell good deane with all his devises.”[1556] +Later he said, “The King is not dead, but he will one day die suddenly; +his leg will kill him and then we shall have jolly stirring.”[1557] It +must have been hope of this day that kept them in England, for they were +well aware of their danger. Starkey, the King’s chaplain, who had +formerly been a great friend of Reginald’s, warned the brothers that “if +the King were not of a good nature,” Cromwell “for one Pole’s sake would +destroy all Poles.”[1558] “The King, to be revenged of Reynold, I fear +will kill us all,” Montague told his brother, and added that he wished +they were both with the Bishop of St Luke [Luik _i.e._ Liége], who was +an honest man and a friend of the Cardinal. “Marry,” said Sir Geoffrey, +“an you fear such jeopardy, let us be walking hence quickly.”[1559] But +Montague could by no means make up his mind to fly, though Geoffrey +often urged it upon him. Reginald, when Geoffrey wished to join him, had +advised them both to “tarry in England and hold up yea and nay +there.”[1560] A non-committal attitude was impossible to Montague, but +he determined to await the issue at home. + +Sir Geoffrey was anxious to leave the realm for other besides political +reasons. He often urged Hugh Holland to contrive his escape, with +promises of ample reward when he reached Reginald’s friends, but Holland +was afraid to do more than he had already done and always refused[1561]. +Sir Geoffrey lacked ready money, and his debts were “a great occasion +for him to flee.” In this extremity he turned for help to George +Croftes, the chancellor of Chichester Cathedral. Croftes was an +ecclesiastic of the old school. When the Supremacy Act was passed he +prepared to leave the country rather than take the oath, but Lord +Delaware, his intimate friend, persuaded him to conform[1562]. Sir +Geoffrey told Croftes that he was determined to leave England with the +next fair wind, for safeguard of his life. Croftes lent him twenty +nobles to help him on his journey. + +Next morning Croftes wrote to Sir Geoffrey advising him to stay in +England, for “he had the most marvellous dream that night that ever he +had in his life, and that he thought Our Lady did appear unto him and +she wed [_i.e._ _pledged_] him that it should be the destruction of the +said Sir Geoffrey and of all his kin if he departed the realm.”[1563] +The dream must have impressed Sir Geoffrey, for he gave up his plan and +returned the twenty nobles[1564]. Croftes went to John Collins, +Montague’s chaplain, and told him the whole matter, begging him to ask +his master to pay Sir Geoffrey’s debts. “Whereupon there was a way taken +by the said Lord Montague that all his said debts amounting to a great +sum were paid.”[1565] + +It is sad that this good-hearted old priest should have all unwittingly +brought their fate on the heads of the house of Pole. Dreams were the +curse of the White Rose party. + +NOTES TO CHAPTER XXII + +Note A. “Spes mea in Deo est” was a motto much used in the decoration of +the Countess’s house at Warblington[1566]. + +Note B. The letter is printed in full by Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIV, +and by Merriman, op. cit. II, no. 218. It has so often been quoted and +is so deservedly well known that it is necessary to include only a few +quotations which are very much to the point. + +Note C. Early in August 1914 a civilian was travelling in a carriage +full of young miners just embodied in their Territorial unit and in the +wildest spirits. “I suppose you’re longing to meet a German?” he asked +one of them. “By! If I meets a Garman, I’m off,” said the lad. He was +certainly avowing an intention to desert in action; but I wonder if he +did? Froude was too hard upon the unfortunate Sir Geoffrey Pole in +several respects. This was partly owing to the fact that he had not the +full evidence, arranged and dated, before him. + +Note D. This speech is pieced together from three different reports of +the same words. + + + + + CHAPTER XXIII + THE EXETER CONSPIRACY + + +On 12 October 1537, Queen Jane gave birth to a son. Froude +enthusiastically describes the public rejoicings: “The crown had an +undoubted heir. The succession was sure. The King, who was supposed to +be under a curse which refused him male posterity, was relieved from the +bane. Providence had borne witness for him and had rewarded his policy. +No revolution need be looked for on his death. The Catholics could not +hope for their ‘jolly stirring.’—The insurrection was crushed. A prince +was born. England was saved.”[1567] No doubt the birth of the prince +greatly strengthened the King’s position. But perhaps the rejoicings of +the people were not quite so heart-felt nor so universal as appeared +outwardly. At least the following story shows that the hidden hatred of +the King extended itself to his innocent baby son. + +Some months after the birth of the prince a group of idlers were +watching the funeral of a child in a London churchyard. For some reason +the priest became suspicious, and, opening the shroud, found no child +but a waxen image with two pins stuck through it. One of the bystanders +went to a friend, a scrivener, said to be skilled in conjuring, and +asked what this might mean. “Marry,” said the scrivener, “it was made to +waste one. But,” quoth he, “he that made it was not his craft’s master, +for he should have put it either in horse-dung or in a dunghill.” “Why, +may one kill a man after this sort?” cried the other. “Yea, that may be +done well enough,” said the man skilled in magic[1568]. The story of the +wax child was rumoured through the country[1569], and it was said that +the life so uncannily attacked was that of the baby Prince. On the death +of Queen Jane rumours had been blown abroad that both the King and the +Prince were dead as well[1570]. + +Any discussion of the general state of Europe would be out of place +here, but a rough sketch of the situation is necessary. Henry was +virtually at war with the Pope and though he was at peace with all the +other powers he was on bad terms with his nephew James V of Scotland, +his relations with the Emperor were strained, and his friendship with +Francis far from cordial. His only real allies were the Protestant +States of Germany. In these circumstances the Pope was naturally making +every effort to obtain an ally who would fight for him against Henry. +James would not invade England without French help; and Francis could +not afford to have a second war on his hands. The Pope’s scheme was +therefore to reconcile Francis and Charles, and then publish his +censures on the understanding that they would refuse to continue their +treaties with Henry unless he returned to the pale of the Church. If +this had not the desired effect they were to forbid all trade whatsoever +between their dominions and England. This, as the court of Rome thought, +could not fail to end in a complete and bloodless victory. It was a +beautiful plan; wiser men in later ages have believed it possible to +stop the trade of nations by a word. On account of her isolation both in +place and policy, England has often been the intended victim of such +interdicts. Once, long afterwards, one was really attempted; there is no +reason to believe that the Pope would have been more successful than +Napoleon. + +The first step was to reconcile Francis and Charles; one bond between +them was their common dislike of the King of England. On becoming a +widower Henry proposed to use his hand as a prize in the game of +international politics. To his intense annoyance he found it was a prize +which no one very much coveted. It was in vain he tried to strengthen +himself by proposing to the Emperor a marriage with the Dowager Duchess +of Milan and hinting to Francis that he was anxious to bestow his hand +on a French Princess. He even made overtures for Mary of Guise when she +was already betrothed to the King of Scots. In December peace was +concluded between Francis and the Emperor; Henry hoped that by a skilful +use of all opportunities to inflame their jealousy it might be a short +and disturbed one, but for once the Pope decidedly had the advantage. In +May 1538, Charles and Francis met at Nice: the Pope joined them there, +with Pole among his attendant Cardinals. The two princes agreed on a ten +years’ truce and parted the best of friends. They did not pledge +themselves to anything with regard to England, though they listened +politely to the Pope’s schemes and made no definite refusal. They were +firm in their temporary friendship and Henry in vain tried to make +Francis distrust his new ally by sending reports that Mary was to be +betrothed to Don Luis of Portugal and the Duchy of Milan settled upon +them. Moreover he had deeply offended the whole French Court by +suggesting that several of the princesses might meet him at Calais and +he would choose a bride among them. + +If Henry was no nearer his re-marriage in August 1538 than he had been +nine months before, neither was the Pope nearer his dream of the +submission of England. Charles was preoccupied with the Turks and his +own Protestants in Germany, and had no time to look for infidels and +heretics in other countries. As to Francis, all his ambitions were fixed +on strengthening his position on the continent, nor did he care in the +least about the unity of the Faith, for which Charles had some regard. +Neither of them would take the risk and expense of invading England +without the other’s help; but a joint expedition was out of the +question, for Charles would only have undertaken it on behalf of Mary, +and Francis only in hopes of establishing James V on the thrones of both +kingdoms. The appearance of a legitimate male heir to Henry was equally +embarrassing to the rival schemers; and no doubt they determined to wait +for a better time. The Prince might die in infancy, as all Katharine’s +sons had done, or in youth, like the Duke of Richmond. As to the Pope’s +plan of stopping England’s trade, it would mean considerable loss and no +particular profit for both, and that matter was tacitly dropped. In +spite of the truce and the meeting at Nice, Henry was in little more +danger than before, and in much less than he appeared to be. The fate of +the Poles was hastened because Henry feared an invasion by the Emperor +at the Pope’s instigation—and feared it more than he need have done. But +in them he was punishing if not exactly the innocent, at least the +helpless. No European monarch had Exeter’s claim to the crown at heart: +quite the contrary. If Charles relied on the Pole faction to raise a +popular commotion in his favour (as Froude suggests), he was leaning on +a very feeble reed[1571]. + +Meanwhile in England itself the King’s policy was triumphant. The +destruction of the shrines, the surrenders of the great monasteries went +merrily forward. Our Lady’s images and the bones of St Thomas were burnt +in company with numerous “heretics,” who denied orthodox doctrines, and +Friar Forest, who denied the King’s Supremacy[1572]. More commonplace +executions for treason made a little variety. One of these was a sequel +to the Pilgrimage, and the victim was no other than Thomas Miller, +Lancaster Herald. He had been zealous for the King if ever man was: he +had gone fearlessly to and fro between the rebels and the King’s troops, +respected by all; he had turned the course of the Archbishop’s famous +sermon at Pontefract; he had been “ungoodly handled” when he carried the +King’s pardon to Durham; and all to end in his sharing the Pilgrims’ +fate. In the summer of 1538 the following charges were brought against +him:— + + +(1) He encouraged the rebels by kneeling before Robert Aske in +Pontefract Castle. + +(2) He promised the rebels that Cromwell should be delivered to them and +their demands granted. + +(3) He discouraged the King’s troops by saying the rebels had ten +thousand horsemen, each with twenty angels in his pocket. + +(4) He showed the King’s plans to the rebels. + +(5) He defamed Cromwell and spread lying rumours against him, which +chiefly made the northern men hate him. + +(6) He answered, when asked how the northern men could be brought +together seeing they had but two flags and no trumpets, drumslades, +tabors or other instruments, that “it was marvel, but such was God,” by +which he traitorously implied that God could help rebels[1573]. + + +All these accusations, except the first and the last, were based on the +unsupported evidence of two of the other heralds, who were his personal +enemies, and could not possibly know what he had said while in the rebel +host[1574]. Lancaster had knelt to Robert Aske, but from anything rather +than disloyal motives; the remark in the last articles might have been +made without any treasonable intent; all the rest look much like pure +inventions. It was very easy in Tudor times to swear an enemy’s life +away; if he had no near kinsfolk, there was nothing to trouble the +perjurer afterwards but his own conscience. + +Thomas Miller was hanged at York on 1 August, and the judge “devised +that Lancaster’s head should be set up by the body of Aske.”[1575] It +was not two years since Aske had greeted the herald so proudly in +Pontefract Castle Hall. Two others, the vicar of Newark and a monk of +Fountains, died for treason at the same time[1576]. + +At most of the northern assizes at this time one or two priests were +executed for preaching against the Supremacy, or kindred offences. John +Dobson, who dealt so largely in prophecies[1577], paid a heavy penalty +for his string of rhymes, and another priest suffered with him. A third +offender was a woman accused of witchcraft[1578]. Her name was Mabel +Brigg, and she was a widow and farm-servant in Holderness. She was +condemned for keeping the “Black Fast” or “St Trynian’s Fast” against +the King and the Duke of Norfolk. It was said that she had once before +fasted in the same way “for a man, and he brake his neck or it were all +fasted, and so she trusted that they should do that had made all this +business, and that was the King and this false Duke.” The witnesses did +not agree as to how the fast was kept. It seems to have lasted six +weeks, one day in each week being kept a fast day, and each week a day +later than the last. This method of fasting was also used when money had +been lost, in hopes of bringing about its recovery. It seems possible +that Mabel Brigg was really fasting for this end and not for the King’s +death, for the evidence is not very satisfactory, and the whole case is +complicated by blackmail and private malice[1579]. + +These stories are told for the sake of such light as they may throw on +the state of England during 1538. The outstanding events of the year, +especially the universal destruction of the abbeys, are too well known +to need any description[1580]. The Protestants, in spite of the burning +of heretics, were rapidly increasing. The Papists, still vastly more +powerful in numbers, were crushed in spirit. Everyone, from the greatest +noble to the poorest commoner, could if he tried make something out of +the fall of the monasteries; this fact influenced all classes, but +especially the gentlemen, who sold, if not their souls, at least their +honour, for a parcel of abbey lands. Only a few of the commons had +enough intelligence to see that the King was killing the goose that laid +his subjects golden eggs. Even if the worst accusations against the +monks were true, if they all lived in idle luxury, careless of their +old-time hospitality, spending on themselves the alms due to the poor; +still as long as the abbeys remained in their hands they were not wholly +lost to the people. The lands were still there; a religious revival +might return them to their original uses; wise legislation might convert +the abbeys into schools and hospitals. But when all the dedicated wealth +of the religious passed through the King’s hands into those of +extravagant favourites and grasping landlords, then, indeed, they were +lost for ever to the poor of England. Whether the Reformation was good +or bad it is useless to consider; that it was inevitable is quite clear; +but that it was most grossly mismanaged and caused endless misery and +injustice it is surely impossible to deny. + +When Cardinal Pole returned to Rome from his first legation he found +that the Pope had caused his book, _De Unitate_, to be printed. +Characteristically he objected to this decided step, and had the entire +edition bought up[1581]. Concluding too much from the King’s anger on +reading it, he believed it was a good weapon to hold over Henry’s head. +It seems almost pitiful that any man should expect to frighten Henry +into better behaviour with a book. After the meeting at Nice, Pole +retired to Venice for the summer of 1538. Theobald, an English student +in Italy, and also a member of Cromwell’s secret service, sent amusing +accounts of his way of life to the English Government[1582]. He got his +news from Michael Throgmorton, who may have been unsuspicious, or may +have sent through him such reports as he thought would do good in +England. Cromwell heard of the Cardinal’s fear of assassination, and the +precautions taken against it, which Theobald rather humorously imputed +to his evil conscience[1583]. Pole lived quietly in Venice, and it was +there that he heard in September of Sir Geoffrey’s arrest. + +During 1538 the conduct of the White Rose party was neither better nor +worse than before. They were still out of favour, and still grumbled +among themselves, but they were becoming more indifferent to the King’s +proceedings[1584]. They contented themselves with showing their dislike +to the religious changes by dismissing any servants who favoured the new +learning, and keeping conservative priests about them. Montague and +Exeter assumed a fictitious “strangeness” towards each other on account +of the suspicion in which they were held. By the court they were +slighted and insulted. In the summer of 1538 Henry made a progress +through the south, and stayed near Warblington where the Countess of +Salisbury lived, but he passed by and did not come to visit her, +although she was his kinswoman, and in the days of Queen Katharine’s +power he had loved and venerated her. “Well, let it pass,” said +Montague, speaking of this slight, “we shall thank them one day. This +world will turn upso-down, and I fear me we shall have no lack but of +honest men.” A little while before this Geoffrey had told Montague of +the messages he had received from Reginald a year before. + +About the same time Cromwell sent his nephew Richard to Exeter to beg +him “to be frank in opening certain things.” This seems to mean that the +Marquis was offered safety and pardon if he would accuse his friends. He +refused[1585]. The King set about finding other witnesses. + +The first that presented himself was Gervaise Tyndale, late a +schoolmaster at Grantham[1586], a “new-fangled fellow” of “heretic” +opinions. Three or four years before, the friars had driven away his +pupils. In the spring of 1538 he came to Warblington in bad health and +took up his quarters with Richard Eyre, a surgeon, who administered a +kind of hospital kept up by the Countess of Salisbury’s bounty. Here he +heard all the whispering and gossiping of her household and was filled +with the true Protestant horror of her Papist bigotry. She dismissed any +servants who favoured the new learning, or as Tyndale said “God’s word”; +she openly forbade her tenants to read the New Testament in English and +other books which the King had licensed; nothing passed in all the +countryside but the Lady presently knew it, for the priests learnt +everything in confession and then told her. No wonder this was resented, +though people admitted that the Countess used her power kindly; her +servants blamed the chaplains rather than their mistress. “There were a +company of priests in my lady’s house which did her much harm and kept +her from the true knowledge of God’s word.” + +Tyndale was discovered to be a heretic and asked to depart. He refused +stoutly; “I would not depart neither for lord nor lady till I were +better amended.” The Countess then ordered the surgeon to send away all +his patients. Tyndale did not leave the neighbourhood until he had +picked up a good deal of information. Eyre told him “very secretly” that +“there is a knave which dwelleth by, whose name is Hugh Holland, and he +beginneth now of late to act the merchant man and the broker, for he +goeth over sea and conveys letters to Master Heliar ... and he playeth +the knave of the other hand and conveyeth letters to Master Pole the +Cardinal, and all the secrets of the realm of England is known to the +Bishop of Rome.” + +As far as can be made out (for the document we quote is mutilated in +parts) Tyndale wished to open a school in the neighbourhood and was +opposed by all the priests. In a quarrel with one of them he called him +a knave and accused him of “scarcely” being the King’s friend. The +constable, standing by “in a great fume,” defended the priest saying, +“It was merry in this country before such fellows came, which findeth +such faults with our honest priests”; but he was rather frightened by +the turn the conversation had taken, and told the whole matter to Sir +Geoffrey Pole[1587]. Sir Geoffrey was troubled on finding that Hugh +Holland’s voyages were so much talked about. He took Holland and Eyre, +who was a gossip and a grumbler but not really ill-disposed to his +mistress, and rode to the Lord Privy Seal. He had an explanation with +Cromwell about his correspondence with Heliar[1588] “and made such shift +that the matter was cloaked.” Heliar’s goods had been seized on the +report that he had fled after speaking traitorous words; they were now +restored, and no doubt Sir Geoffrey thought the affair settled, probably +by a bribe to Cromwell. But the little group of heretics at Warblington +were very ill satisfied: they believed that if only they could get word +with the Lord Privy Seal they could “so discover the matter that they +should no longer blind him in it as they have done.” At length they drew +up a long and rambling statement of everything suspicious they had seen +or heard in the Countess’ household and despatched it to Cromwell. It is +undated but probably belongs to May or June 1538[1589]. + +The only serious accusation was that Hugh Holland had carried +treasonable letters to the Cardinal, and the first result was his +arrest. He was taken at Lord Montague’s house at Bockmore and there was +a “ruffle” with the King’s officers[1590]. As he was being carried +prisoner “with his hands bound behind him and his legs bound under his +horse’s belly,” along the London road, he met Sir Geoffrey who asked him +where he was “bound to go.” Hugh answered he could not tell, but he bade +Sir Geoffrey “keep on his way, for he should not be long after.”[1591] +This was the popular story, spread through the country by a certain +harper of Havant, and there is something rather balladlike about it, +though that is no reason for supposing it untrue. + +Sir Geoffrey kept on his way to Bockmore, where he was living at the +time, and took counsel with his brother[1592]. He suggested “that the +keeping of letters might turn a man’s friends to hurt.” Montague +answered, “Nay, they shall hurt no friend of mine, for I have burnt all +my letters.”[1593] Sir Geoffrey had not been so prudent, and he at once +despatched John Collins, the chaplain, to his house at Lordington[1594]. +He gave him a ring as a token to his wife, Dame Constance, and on +receiving this she took the priest to her husband’s closet, and there he +burnt all the letters he could find[1595]. + +This burning of letters was afterwards made much of by the Government +prosecution, which said that they must have contained treasonable +matter. The circumstances were certainly suspicious, but not a single +treasonable paper was proved to have existed, though the papers of both +brothers were remembered and described by servants and friends. Among +Geoffrey’s there was an old letter to Heliar, which may have contained +treason, but seems to have been quite harmless[1596]. There was also a +bundle of letters from John Stokesley, the Bishop of London, who was a +friend of Sir Geoffrey[1597]. He was reported to be one of the few +honest bishops[1598], and though heretics might preach at Paul’s cross +it was with none of his goodwill[1599]; he may have been the friend Sir +Geoffrey feared bringing to harm. There was a copy of a letter from Sir +Geoffrey to the Imperial Ambassador; Collins loyally declared that it +merely begged favour for Heliar, but of all described this is the most +likely to have contained treason. Finally he burnt a letter or letters +concerning Latimer; when told of this last, Sir Geoffrey said, “What, +you have burnt that also? Those letters were shown before the Council, +and my lord of Norfolk told me I might keep those letters well enough.” +Collins rode back to Bockmore and told Montague his errand was done. His +master asked him how Dame Constance did, and he replied “as a woman in +her case might, meaning that she was in heaviness for such news as was +of her husband ... and opening of Hugh Holland’s going overseas.”[1600] + +Montague had been in the habit of burning all his letters shortly after +receiving them; a habit perhaps not common in the days when letters were +scarcer than they are now. Among them had been copies of three letters +from Reginald Pole to the King, Cromwell, and the Bishop of Durham +respectively. These were the letters brought by Michael Throgmorton in +1536[1601]; Starkey must have given Montague the copies; and as both he +and his mother had been required to write and reprove Reginald for +sending them there seems nothing very strange in that. Montague had +showed them to Collins with some triumph; the chaplain said his brother +“wrote somewhat roughly to the Lord Privy Seal.” “Marry, I warrant you,” +cried Montague, “he uttereth his mind plainly.”[1602] There were two +other letters from Reginald to his mother and brother; but they had been +written before the quarrel with the King and were about family affairs; +in the one to his brother, Reginald advised that his nephew Henry, +Montague’s only son, should be brought up at home to live an active +life[1603]. Montague had also burnt letters from Exeter and his wife—at +least he had received such letters several times during the last three +years, and they were not found on his arrest: none of their contents was +discovered except the most ordinary enquiries and answers about +health[1604]. They may very well have contained nothing else, for they +seem to have passed only when one or other of the friends was ill. + +After Collins’s return from Lordington, Montague and Sir Geoffrey rode +together to London[1605], determined to face the matter out as well as +they might. All these things, from Hugh Holland’s arrest onward, +happened “between Whitsuntide and Midsummer,” or about “the feast of +Corpus Christi” (10 June). They spent many weeks of uncertainty before +Sir Geoffrey was committed to the Tower on 29 August[1606]. + +Some time before Lord Montague had told his brother to disclose nothing +if ever he were examined “for if he opened one all must needs come +out.”[1607] This was very sound advice. A study of various confessions +shows that a prisoner often began by intending to say very little, and +ended by blurting out everything he knew, and sometimes even more. At +first Sir Geoffrey tried to do his brother’s bidding, but he lacked the +strength of body and mind which can carry a man silent through two +months in the Tower. His wife was allowed to visit him and she presently +told Montague that her husband “was in a frenzy and might utter rash +things.” Montague replied, “It forceth not what a madman +speaketh.”[1608] On 26 October Sir Geoffrey made his first answers to +the interrogatories administered. They did not satisfy the examiners, +for he accused hardly anyone but himself. Montague, Exeter, and +Delaware, he said, had once disliked the King’s proceedings but of late +years their minds had changed. At the end he beseeches the King “that he +may have good keeping and cherishing, and thereby somewhat comfort +himself, and have better stay of himself,” and he will then tell all he +knows even though it touch his own mother or brother[1609]. + +In the first days of November his friends heard that, knowing his +steadfastness gone, he had made one last effort to save their lives and +his own honour, and had “almost slain himself.”[1610] He must have made +the attempt immediately after the first examination, for it was known in +London on 28 October, when John Hussee wrote to Lord Lisle, “Sir +Geoffrey Pole was examined in the Tower by my Lord Admiral. They say he +was so in despair that he would have murdered himself, and has hurt +himself sore. Please keep this secret as yet.”[1611] There is a +contemporary account of the matter though it really throws less light on +poor Geoffrey’s character than on the religious ideas of the court +party. It tells how for a long time the prisoner would reveal nothing +though “conscience and God” worked in his mind against “blood and +nature,” urging him to tell all. “This motion ran oft in his head, but +the devil, continual adversary to God’s honour and man’s wealth, put in +his foot, and so tossed this wretched soul, that out of many evils he +chose even the worst of all, which was a full purpose to slay himself. +The commodities of his death were many, as the devil made them to show: +his brother should live still, their family continue in honour, the Lord +Marquis should have great cause to love all his blood, which had killed +himself to save him; with many such fantasies as desperate men find to +help them to their end.... His keeper being absent, a knife at hand upon +the table, he riseth out of his bed, and taketh the knife, and with full +intent to die, gave himself a stab with the knife upon the breast. The +devil lacketh strength, when God has anything to do, and can better +begin things than bring them to effect.” The knife was blunt and the +wound not mortal. But in great fear of death and hell he began to think +it better his friends should lose their heads than he his soul. He sent +for the Lieutenant of the Tower and certain of the Privy Council and +disclosed everything then and there. Thus the devil’s subtle provision +of the knife was turned against himself[1612]. + +The last part of this account is more or less untrue. Sir Geoffrey did +not reveal everything in instant fear of death; he was examined seven +times in all at intervals of a day or two[1613]. But of course the +examiners made the most of the state of moral collapse likely to follow +a weak man’s attempted suicide. + +Chance played into their hands. Fitzwilliam, the Lord Admiral, who had +lately been created Earl of Southampton, was at Cowdray, his seat in +Sussex, during September. On the 17th he was out hawking with Lord +Delaware when a poor man came to beg favour of him. His wife, he said, +had been committed to Chichester prison by John Gunter, J.P., for saying +that Sir Geoffrey Pole would have sent a band of men oversea to the +Cardinal if he had not been sent to the Tower. Southampton seized upon +the clue like a modern sleuth hound, and brought to light a great deal +of country gossip about the Poles, who were the great family of the +neighbourhood[1614]. Going abroad to the Emperor’s wars was a recognised +career for adventurous young men, as the following story shows. In May +1538, a serving-man of Chichester said: “Master, I can have no living +here. I will go beyond sea: for I know one John Stappill hath been there +in the Emperor’s wars, and is now come home like a jolly fellow +apparelled in scarlet, and a hundred crowns in his purse”; this friend +would get the King’s licence for him to go abroad, and also “for +half-a-score more of my Lady of Salisbury’s servants.” If they could not +get service under the Emperor they would go to Cardinal Pole, “and there +we shall be sure to be retained.”[1615] According to popular rumour Sir +Geoffrey had intended to despatch this band to his brother in March. It +was also whispered that the King and his Council would have burnt my +Lady of Salisbury when they were in Sussex if she had been a young +woman. The reports were traced to Lawrence Taylor, the harper of Havant, +who confessed he had heard of the matter from the surgeon Richard Eyre, +the tattler who was at the bottom of all the trouble. After examining +him, John Gunter had released Taylor, who went off to a wedding. When +Southampton heard this he turned on the unfortunate magistrate, accusing +him of negligence and saying he had acted “like an untrue man. He waxed +pale and with tears and sobbing besought me (Southampton) to be good to +him; he had not seen the importance of the matter at the beginning, but +would make amends by his diligent search for the said Lawrence.”[1616] +He delivered the harper to Southampton next day[1617], and was so worked +upon by his fears that he himself reported to Southampton some private +conversations he had had with Sir Geoffrey Pole. Two years afterwards +Sir Geoffrey “did sore hurt and wound” John Gunter, because “he had +dealt unkindly with him in his trouble by uttering things they had +communed of in secret.”[1618] + +Primed with so much information, Southampton rode to London to conduct +Sir Geoffrey’s examination. He knew quite enough to make it appear that +he knew everything; he had only to perform the common lawyer’s trick of +making a desperate man believe it is useless to conceal what he knows, +that he may save himself by confession but can save no one else by +silence. It is easy for a man like Froude, who was a weak sentimentalist +and so unable to sympathise with weakness in others, to condemn Sir +Geoffrey as a traitor. But the prisoners of those days had to undergo +something far worse than the most savage modern cross-examination. To +begin with, a man charged with treason was in a hopeless case: no jury +would acquit him. His one chance was the King’s mercy, and that could +only be gained by accusing others. + +A man who does not fear death (Sir Geoffrey had tried to destroy +himself) may fear torture. There is nothing to prove that Pole was +threatened with the rack, and it seems to have been the custom to spare +men of noble birth. Popular rumour said he was so threatened[1619], and +Richard Moryson denied it with much elaboration[1620]: both assertions +are quite untrustworthy. An openly spoken threat was not needed; a +prisoner worn out with two months of close confinement and low living +does not need any reminder; the fact that he is in the Tower, helpless +before men who wield the powers of life and death and pain is threat +enough. We can understand this only too clearly when we read this letter +to the King, added in Sir Geoffrey’s hand to his second examination, +taken on 2 November[1621]:— + + “Sir, I beseech your noble Grace to pardon my wretchedness that I have + not done my bounden duty unto your Grace heretofore as I ought to have + done, but, Sir, grace coming to me to consider your nobleness always + to me, and now especially in my extreme necessity, as I perceive by my + Lord Admiral and Mr Comptroller (_the examiners_), your goodness shall + not be lost on me, but surely as I found your Grace always faithful + unto me, so I refuse all creature living to be faithful to you. Your + humble slave, Geffrey Pole.” + +When this letter was written he had as yet accused no one but himself +and Hugh Holland of serious offences[1622]. But his confessions became +rapidly more and more compromising to his friends[1623]. He told the +details of many political conversations with Exeter, with Sir Edward +Neville, with Croftes the chancellor of Chichester Cathedral, but +chiefly with his own brother. Jerome Ragland, a confidential servant of +Montague “who was as it were his right hand,”[1624] made a long +confession against his master on 28 (?) October[1625]. Perhaps Sir +Geoffrey was confronted with this. The most pitiful record of all is a +statement in Sir Geoffrey’s own hand telling of Montague’s words against +the King[1626]. It seems to have been written in a frenzy of hysterical +rage against the man who had chosen to stay in England when they might +have escaped safely across the seas. Everything came out, as Montague +had foreseen; and not only through Sir Geoffrey, but, as more and more +of the little faction were brought to the Tower, many others made +equally long and unwilling confessions. + +Montague and Exeter were committed on 4 November. The French Ambassador +wrote to the Constable of France, in cypher, the following account of +the King’s intentions:— + + “En escrivant ceste lettre ce matin, este adverty que le Roy + d’Angleterre fit mettre hier au soir en la Tour de Londres Monsieur le + Marquis d’Exestre ..., qui est apres les enfans du Roy le plus proche + de ceste couronne, et milort de Montagu.... Il y a bien longtemps que + ce Roy m’avoit dict qu’il vooloit exterminer ceste maison de Montagu, + qui est encore de la Rose Blanche, et de la maison de Polle dont est + le Cardinal. Je ne scay encore qu’on veult faire dudit Marquis; par le + premier je vous en advertiray. Il semble qu’il cherche toutes les + occasions qu’on peult penser pour se ruyner et destruyre. Je croy que + peu de seigneurs sont asseures en ce pays; je ne croy pas qu’il n’en + advienne quelque miquemaque. Je vous advertiray en diligence de ce que + j’en entendray.”[1627] + +Sir Edward Neville, George Croftes of Chichester, John Collins, and +several servants were all arrested shortly after the two lords[1628]. +Gertrude, the Lady Marquis of Exeter, followed her husband to the Tower +before 21 November[1629], with her little son Edward Courtenay. It is +not certain whether Henry Pole, Montague’s heir, went at this time with +his father, or later with his grandmother. Of the evidence given in +their examinations little need be said; the most important consists of +reports of conversations which came within the new treason act, and +several of these have been mentioned already. The evidence is singularly +full and we probably have more before us than was read at the trials, +for there are two copies of many of the papers, and a great many +repetitions in successive examinations. The only paper which may +possibly be missing is the answer of the Marquis of Exeter to a set of +interrogatories[1630]; but as no statement of the Marquis is mentioned +in Cromwell’s notes and summaries or in the indictments, he may never +have answered, and if he did his evidence must have been unimportant. + +There is absolutely no proof of a conspiracy: the White Rose party were +working on no sort of plan and had come to no definite agreement among +themselves. We have once or twice spoken of their dreams of Cardinal +Pole’s marriage with Mary, after an invasion in her favour by the +Emperor[1631]. But a careful study of their statements shows that we +have put these aims in a much more definite form than they ever did +themselves. Even Froude, who finds no difficulty in believing in an +organised plot just about to take effect, was puzzled by the fact that +their schemes must have included two pretenders to the throne, Mary and +Exeter[1632]. The explanation is that they never thought the matter out. +They were less a political party than a group of friends, who loved the +old Faith, hated Cromwell, and longed for a change of policy. They met +and talked treason and sang political songs in the Marquis’s garden at +Horsley, and in the woods at Bockmore. They did not trouble themselves +about anything so strenuous and intellectual as a plot. The King’s +version of the matter, that Exeter meant to seize the Crown and slay the +entire royal family, was simply ridiculous, considering that he had no +one to help him but Mary’s especial friends[1633]. + +Montague and the rest were guilty of treason under the new laws but not +under the old[1634]. The case against them rested on nothing but words. +They had not done anything treasonable with the exception of Sir +Geoffrey Pole and Hugh Holland who had sent warning to a traitor beyond +the seas. They had not compassed or purposed the King’s death: they had +only said they would be glad if he died. They had not levied war against +him: they had only wished someone else would. There must have been some +feeling against the new treason law, for Henry himself was troubled at +putting it into execution and did his very best to make the world +believe that the “conspirators” were guilty of more serious offences +than those for which they were indicted. + +Under the Act of 1534 there was no difficulty in convicting Montague and +Sir Edward Neville; quick and careless of tongue, they had both fallen +under the law “that if any person ... do maliciously wish, will or +desire, by words or writing or by craft, imagine any bodily harm to be +done or committed to the King’s most royal person” he is guilty of high +treason[1635]. Against both of them Sir Geoffrey was the chief witness; +both made short confessions in the Tower, in which there was nothing +that could be used against their friends[1636]. “I have lived in prison +all these six years,” Montague told his examiners; he thought it better +to lie in the Tower than to go abroad in suspicion, and he had never +felt free since Reginald had offended the King[1637]. + +The two priests, Collins and Croftes, both confessed their secret +attachment to the Pope[1638]. Croftes had said, “The King is not Supreme +Head of the Church of England but the Bishop of Rome is Supreme Head of +the Church,” and also “There was none act or thing that ever he did more +grieved his conscience than the oath which he took to renounce the +bishop of Rome’s authority”; Lord Delaware had persuaded him to receive +it after he had determined rather to fly abroad[1639]. Collins said “the +King will hang in hell one day for the plucking down of abbeys”; and +when talking with Montague of the fall of monasteries: “I fear that +within a while they will pull down the parish churches also.”[1640] He +had instructed a friend to burn his sermons if he was sent to the +Tower[1641]; the burning of papers was in the King’s eyes quite +sufficient proof that they contained treason. + +It was against Exeter that the Government had most difficulty in making +out a case. Neither Montague nor Neville would accuse him, and in none +of his conversations with Sir Geoffrey had he spoken against the King. +In 1531 he had been banished the court and perhaps put under arrest for +a short time, on account of the gossiping of his servants[1642], who had +gone about saying “My Lord Marquis would be King and they lords,” and +“our master shall wear the garland at the last.”[1643] But if this +charge was not thought serious in 1531, there was no reason why it +should be seven years later; nevertheless the King’s lawyers thought it +worth reviving. + +Another charge, this time against the Lady Marquis, was equally out of +date. As her gentlewoman confessed, she had gone in disguise to speak +with the Nun of Kent, and had afterwards received her at Horsley[1644]. +It was not about political hopes she had consulted the Holy Maid; all +her babies had died at birth, and she desired the Nun’s prayers for the +child she was then expecting[1645]; there was no proof that they had +conversed treasonably. If the King knew of the Lady Marquis’s +correspondence with Chapuys a really grave charge might have been +brought against her[1646]. But the Marquis was not implicated in either +of these mysterious expeditions. The straits to which Cromwell was put +to make out a rational case against him is shown by this passage in one +of the depositions:— + + “About three years past when lord Montague began to recover from his + sickness he sent examinate (_his servant Jerome Ragland_) to Horsley + to show the lord Marquis of his recovery: the lord Marquis said he was + glad thereof”; + +This is solemnly noted in the margin “Against the Lord Marquis.”[1647] + +In the end the Crown lawyers were obliged to be contented with two +scraps of conversation—“I trust once to have a fair day upon these +knaves which rule about the King, and I trust to see a merry world one +day”; and “Knaves rule about the King; I trust to give them a buffet one +day.” Also the general declaration “I like well the proceedings of +Cardinal Pole, but I like not the proceedings of this realm,”[1648] +which is not to be found in the evidence, and was a kind of profession +of faith attributed to all the prisoners. To one who is no lawyer these +sayings do not appear to bring the Marquis under the Act of 1534. There +is no wish or thought expressed against the King’s person; at the worst +they are against the King’s ministers and policy, and these are not +mentioned in the Act; no doubt by an oversight. + +Exeter was to be tried by his peers on 3 December, Montague on 2 +December[1649]. On this last date Thomas West, Lord Delaware, was +committed to the Tower[1650]. It was whispered that he had dared to +refuse to take a place in the jury of peers[1651]. This rumour may have +been true, for on 1 December the Council wrote to Henry humbly +apologising for not having sent Delaware to the Tower; they had done +their best, they assured the King, but as yet they had found nothing +sufficient against him. They had commanded him to keep to his house, and +to make a full confession[1652]. It may have been merely through Henry’s +impatience that he was sent to the Tower next day; or perhaps he had +determined after Darcy’s trial to pass no more of the King’s sentences. +It would be good to think there was one nobleman in England who was +capable of so acting. + +Montague was brought to trial on 2 December[1653], indicted of speaking +against the King, approving Cardinal Pole’s doings, and dreaming that +the King was dead[1654]. He pleaded not guilty and was condemned to +death. + +Exeter was brought to the bar on the 3rd, and the same judgment was +pronounced against him[1655]. There is an account of a strange scene +which took place at his trial, given by a contemporary but not by an +eye-witness. Exeter, Montague and Neville + + “all the time of their arraignment stood stiff, with a casting up of + eyes and hands, as though those things had been never heard of before + that then were laid to their charge. The Marquis of all the rest stuck + hardest, and made as though he had been very clear in many points, yet + in some he staggered, and was very sorry so to do, now challenging the + King’s pardon, now taking benefit of the act, and when all would not + serve he began to charge Geoffrey Pole with frenzy, with folly, and + madness. It is much to be noted what answer Geoffrey made to the + Marquis in this point. Some men, saith Geoffrey (as I hear), lay to my + charge that I should be out of my wit and in a frenzy. Truth it is, I + was out of my wit, and in a great frenzy when I fell with them in + conference to be a traitor, disobedient to God, false to my prince, + and enemy to my native country. I was also out of my wit and stricken + with a sore kind of madness when I chose rather to kill myself than to + charge them with such treasons, as I knew would cost them their lives, + if I did utter them. But Our Lord be thanked, God wrought better with + me than I thought to have done with myself. He hath saved my soul at + the last, the knife went not so far as I would have had it gone: His + goodness it is that I have not slain myself:... His work that I have + declared myself, my brother, the Marquis, with the rest to be + traitors. And where I thought, said Geoffrey, rather to have put my + soul in hazard for the saving of these men, God, I thank Him, so + wrought in me and so changed my mind, that if I had ten brethren, yea, + ten sons, I would rather bring them all to this peril of death than + leave my country, my sovereign lord, and mine own soul in such danger + as they all stood in if I had kept these treasons secret. Let us, let + us die, we be but a few, better we have according to our deserts than + our whole country be brought to ruin.... + + “Geoffrey hath never been taken for any pleasant or sage talker, his + wit was wont to serve his tongue but so so. I dare say, they that were + the wisest of the King’s most honourable council did much wonder that + day, to hear him tell his tale, and looked for nothing less than that + he should have so handled himself. God is a marvellous God, He can + make both when Him list and whom He will eloquent, wise, pithy; He can + make the tongues of the dumb serve His elect, when His will is. The + Marquis was stiff at the bar, and stood fast in denial of most things + laid to his charge, yet in some he failed and staggered in such sort + that all men might see his countenance to avouch that, that his tongue + could not without much faltering deny.”[1656] + +Sir Geoffrey Pole with Sir Edward Neville, George Croftes, John Collins, +and Hugh Holland, were brought to trial on 4 December. All pleaded +guilty but Neville, who maintained his innocence to the last. All were +found guilty[1657]. + +Exeter, Montague and Sir Edward Neville were beheaded on Tower Hill on 9 +December and buried within the Tower. The same day Croftes, Holland and +Collins were executed at Tyburn, and “their heads set on London +Bridge.”[1658] Sir Geoffrey Pole remained in the Tower[1659]; the state +of mind in which he had borne evidence against the others can hardly +have outlasted their deaths. On 28 December he again attempted suicide +by suffocating himself with a cushion[1660]. + +Meanwhile the Countess of Salisbury had not been left to mourn her +sorrows in quiet. She had been plunged into anxiety by Geoffrey’s arrest +in August. About the beginning of November the news of his first +attempted suicide found its way to Warblington. “I pray God, madame, he +do you no hurt one day,” said her frightened steward. “I trow he is not +so unhappy that he will hurt his mother,” she answered, “and yet I care +neither for him, nor for any other, for I am true to my Prince.”[1661] +It must have been at this time that she wrote to her eldest son:— + +“Son Montague I send you heretely goddes blessing and myne. This is the +gretist gift that I can send you for to desire god of his helpe wich I +perceave is great need to pray for. And as to the case as I ame informed +that you stand in myne advise is to refer you to god principally and +upon that ground so to ordre you both in word and deed to serve your +prince not disobeyeng goddys commandment as far as your power and lief +woll serve you for of to doo above all ordre for ... hath brought you +upe and maynteyned you ... but his highnes who if you woll ... with your +lerning serve to the content ... of his mynd as your bounden duetie +is ... that you may so serve his highness ... daylie pray to god ... +orelles to take you to his mercy.” It appears that he did not receive it +until he was in the Tower[1662]. + +On 12 November, Southampton and the Bishop of Ely were sent down to +Warblington to interrogate the Countess. She had spoken truly of Sir +Geoffrey; in all his confessions there is no word that could be twisted +into an accusation against her. Nor had the other prisoners laid +anything to her charge; she strongly disliked heretics, but no one +accused her of speaking against the Royal Supremacy. Nevertheless +Southampton had no doubt that he could soon make her commit herself. He +was an experienced examiner and had just come from questioning her sons +in the Tower. He was much disappointed with his first results. The +Countess answered every question in the most straightforward way. She +had had, she said, no secret confidences with, nor any letter from, her +son Reginald and the Vicar of East Meon. She knew nothing of Holland’s +voyage. She had never heard Montague or Sir Geoffrey wish they were +abroad or propose to go; she solemnly denied that they ever uttered +treasonable words in her presence. She had never burnt letters +concerning the King, nor was there any agreement between herself and her +sons to conceal anything. This was the substance of Margaret Pole’s +confession[1663]. + +The examiners wrote to Cromwell—“Yesterday, 13 Nov., as we wrote we +would do, we travailed with the Lady of Salisbury all day, both before +and after noon till almost night; but for all we could do she would +confess nothing more than the first day.” On the 14th they went to her +again, as they were ordered; first they called all her men-servants +before them and arrested one called Standish. “We then entreated her +with both sorts, sometimes with douce and mild words, now roughly and +asperly, by traitoring her and her sons to the ninth degree, yet will +she nothing utter, but maketh herself clear.” They thought such a woman +had never been heard of, she was so earnest and precise and “manlike in +continuance.” Everything was so “sincere, pure, and upright on her part +that we have conceived and needs must deem and think the one of two +things in her: that either her sons have not made her privy nor +participant of the bottom and pit of their stomachs, or else she is the +most arrant traitress that ever lived.” + +They seized her goods and told her that it was the King’s pleasure that +she should leave her home at once. “She seemeth thereat to be somewhat +appalled. And therefore we deem that if it may be so, she will then +utter somewhat when she is removed, which we intend shall be tomorrow.” +They spoke with the neighbouring gentlemen and bade them “to have +vigilant eye to repress any stirring that may arise.”[1664] They +examined Thomas Standish, the clerk of the kitchen, but he confessed +nothing[1665]; the Protestants who lodged the first information against +the Countess had named him as a crafty fellow from whom it would be hard +to get information[1666]. Hugh Holland had told him of his visit to the +Cardinal, and if the Countess knew of it, it would probably be through +him[1667]. + +On 15 November the Countess was taken from her home to Cowdray, +Southampton’s house. It was no wonder that the thought of being left in +the keeping of such a man appalled even so brave a lady. Southampton and +the Bishop of Ely wrote again to Cromwell on 16 November. They were +rather better pleased with themselves. They had got something out of +Standish, whose confession is lost, though apparently nothing against +his mistress. They despaired of making the Countess accuse herself. “We +assure your Lordship we have dealt with such a one as men have not dealt +withal to fore us; we may call her rather a strong and constant man than +a woman.” + +Their hopes revived when some papers were found at Warblington: two or +three old bulls in Standish’s room, and a copy of the Countess’s letter +to Montague in a gentlewoman’s chest. “Travailing sundry times and after +sundry sorts with her,” the examiners thought she had at last admitted +something of importance[1668]. She did not deny the letter was hers; she +had caused it to be written before Montague was in the Tower but after +Sir Geoffrey was taken[1669]. She described a conversation with the +comptroller of her household who said he was afraid Sir Geoffrey would +“slip away.”[1670] The servant himself gave a different account of the +matter, and if he used these words he must have meant Sir Geoffrey was +likely to die, for he had just injured himself in the Tower[1671]. +Finally the Countess was asked whether Sir Geoffrey had not told her +that the King went about to cause Reginald to be slain; she answered +that he had “and she prayed God heartily to change the King’s mind.” +Both her other sons told her that he had escaped “and for motherly pity +she could not but rejoice.”[1672] These were “the principal points” of +her confession. Southampton, “putting her in such order [and] surety +here as the King’s pleasure is she should be left in,” hastened back to +court[1673], and two weeks later took his part in the condemnation of +her eldest son[1674]. + +The fate of the White Rose party caused more stir in court circles than +in the country. Except for the disturbance that Southampton feared at +Warblington, there is no sign that the sympathy of the lower orders was +roused on their behalf. On the other hand the only people really pleased +were the favourers of the New Learning; Exeter and Montague had been too +long out of favour to be much disliked by the nobility. Latimer’s +congratulations to Cromwell on their fate and the Cardinal’s terrible +position have been too often quoted to need inclusion here[1675]. The +Londoners, who every year inclined more towards Protestant opinions, +were distinctly against Exeter and the Poles. A goldsmith was chatting +with two men in a boat at Paul’s Wharf on 13 November. One of these was +“a servant of the King’s within the Tower”; said he, “We have great pain +in watching of these naughty men lately brought into the Tower. Would to +God every man would know their duties to God and their Prince.” The +goldsmith asked if Sir Geoffrey Pole were dead or alive, and what was +the news “of that naughty fellow Pole, his brother beyond sea.” The +King’s servant said he was made Bishop of Rome. + +“How know you that?” asked the goldsmith. + +“I have heard it of great men.” + +“Of whom?” + +“Of some of my Lord Privy Seal’s house.” + +The third man broke in, “I have heard as much as this comes to, for the +council doth know this thing well enough.” + +“I pray you,” said the goldsmith, “how do you know they know it?” + +“By the ambassadors and others.” + +“There was one in our house (i.e. the Tower) prisoner,” said the King’s +servant, “who being delivered by the King’s favour and sent to the said +Pole beyond sea, to show unto him the King’s pleasure, doth yet there +remain, and now is one of the greatest in favour with him.” The +goldsmith asked his name, and was told “Throgmorton.”[1676] + +A Protestant community sending the London news to friends abroad +referred to the executions, not without triumph:—“The principal +supporters of Popery among us have been cut off.”[1677] + +Strangely enough most indignation was aroused abroad, especially in +France, where the nobility had long regarded Henry with aversion. In a +letter to Montmorency, the French ambassador urged that such an +opportunity for a successful invasion of England had never before been +offered to a Constable of France. What glory he might gain by avenging +at length all the wrongs that England had done their country in times +past[1678]! In another letter he related how Henry complained to him of +the way he was spoken of in France, and wished to know if Francis could +not prevent his subjects from using such unseemly railing against his +(Henry’s) heresy and inhumanity. For the first, they should rather +praise him; for the second, the Exeter party had been most justly +punished. The ambassador replied that in France people had so much +greater liberty of speech than in England that it was very difficult to +prevent talking; Francis allowed his people “to say many things” of +himself[1679]. + +Lord Delaware was set free on 21 December[1680]. Nothing had been +deposed against him as far as is known except that he disliked the New +Learning and certain new laws, such as the Act of Uses; also that he was +intimate with Exeter and Croftes and had heard the latter deny the royal +supremacy without informing against him[1681]. This was little enough, +but it might have cost him his head. He was, however, released on heavy +securities and went back to his quiet life as an undistinguished +baron[1682]. + +On the last day of December the last man to suffer for this visionary +conspiracy was sent to the Tower. This was Sir Nicholas Carew, the +Master of the Horse[1683], and a certain mystery surrounds his fate. For +years he had been high in the King’s favour[1684]. The only explanation +of his sudden fall is given by Chapuys, who, writing on 9 January, tells +all the court gossip about this arrest and the late executions. Cromwell +himself explained to the ambassador that Exeter had been plotting to +destroy the King and the Prince, seize the throne himself and marry his +little son to Mary. He added that “their treasons had been fully proved +since their deaths.” It was true they had burnt the incriminating +letters, but fortunately a number of copies of them had been found in a +coffer belonging to the Lady Marquis[1685]. There is no evidence beyond +this bare statement that these letters ever existed except in Cromwell’s +brain. One of them, however, was supposed to implicate Carew[1686]. “The +testimony of young Pole is not sufficient,” wrote Chapuys, “these +men ... want to form the process after the execution.” + +At court it was said that Carew was especially urged to accuse Exeter, +and that he had confessed that when he told the Marquis of the Prince’s +birth he seemed sad; “which,” wrote Chapuys, “I believe was only on +account of the love he bears to the Princess, in whose service he would +willingly, as he had often sent to tell me, shed his blood.”[1687] +Exeter had never made any secret of his attachment to Queen Katharine +and her daughter[1688]. Chapuys thought that if Carew had written to the +Lady Marquis it must have been about Mary, for he too had always shown +himself her devoted servant. “It would seem they wish to leave her as +few such as possible.” Carew had looked for help rather from France than +from the Emperor, “for which he has been frequently reproached by good +Edward Neville.” + +Cromwell hinted that some compromising letter from Chapuys himself might +be found in the Lady Marquis’s collection; but the ambassador felt safe, +for he had written no private letters except to Mary and Katharine, and +he was sure that these had been destroyed. But as burning letters was +now as dangerous as keeping them, he wrote the Princess half a dozen +which she could show to anyone if commanded; he lived in hopes that +Henry would discover them[1689]. + +Sir Nicholas Carew was brought to trial on 14 February, 1539. The charge +against him contained the following clauses:—That he knew Exeter to be a +traitor and falsely encouraged him; that he talked to him of the state +of the world; that they exchanged letters which they afterwards burnt. +Carew was on the Surrey jury which sat on Exeter’s indictment, and had +indiscreetly said, “I marvel greatly that the indictment against the +Lord Marquis was so secretly handled and for what purpose, for the like +was never seen.”[1690] + +Very little of the evidence against him has been preserved. He was +Mary’s friend. He was one of the guests who frequented the Marquis’s +garden at Horsley. He seems to have tried to intercede for the Lady +Marquis when she was sent to the Tower[1691]. But the slightness of the +indictment points to the flimsiest of evidence. He pleaded not guilty +and was sentenced as usual[1692]. + +He was beheaded on Tower Hill, 3 March, 1539[1693], “where he made a +goodly confession, both of his folly and superstitious faith, giving God +most hearty thanks that ever he came in the prison of the Tower, where +he first savoured the life and sweetness of God’s most holy word, +meaning the Bible in English, which there he read by the means of one +Thomas Philips then Keeper.”[1694] + +Chapuys remarked that when confiscating Sir Nicholas’ goods the King +would do well to remember “the most beautiful diamonds and pearls and +innumerable jewels” which he formerly gave to Lady Carew, and which once +had been Queen Katherine’s[1695]. No doubt Henry did remember, for Lady +Carew was soon begging for some provision for herself and her +daughters[1696]. As to the offices held by the late Master of the Horse, +they had been promised to others even before his arrest[1697]. + +Though there was little popular feeling about the death of the Exeter +conspirators, it must have alarmed all but the most secure of the +nobility. Some men must have been revolted by the severity of the new +treason laws; the story of the Lady Marquis’s letters, found after the +trial, was meant to reconcile these malcontents. Henry made another +attempt to persuade public opinion to take his view of the case. Richard +Moryson, one of those quick-witted, talented, heartless, faithless +“knaves” of Cromwell’s, was commissioned to write a book setting forth +the heinousness of treason with special reference to the White Rose +party. This was the tract called “An invective against the great and +detestable vice, treason, wherein the secret practices, and traitorous +workings of them that suffered of late are disclosed,” which was +published in London during 1539. + +In defiance of the title the book contains no coherent account of +Exeter’s alleged plot. We have twice quoted from it at some length, but +it is really more remarkable for its blood-curdling theology and +spirited abuse than for serious historical worth. The letters of the +Lady Marquis are never even mentioned and no proofs of treason are +produced at all. Montague and the rest were detestable traitors; their +guilt is assumed and they are abused for it with abundance of classical +and scriptural illustrations. There is only one belated allusion to +their possible motives for being so gratuitously wicked. It was because +they were Papists; anyone who believes the Pope to be Supreme Head of +the Church “may well lack power or stomach to utter treason, but he can +not lack a traitorous heart.”[1698] Henry was pleased with the book. He +wrote to Hutton, for circulation in the Netherlands, his own account of +the conspiracy, “whereupon of late there is a pretty book printed in +this our realm which ye shall receive herewith.”[1699] + +As an example of Moryson’s style we may quote a part of his invective +relating to Cardinal Pole: “To come at the last, to the archtraitor, and +to speak somewhat of him whom God hateth, nature refuseth, all men +detest, yea and all beasts too would abhore, if they could perceive how +much viler he is than is even the worst of them: what man would ever +have thought that Reynold Pole could have been by any gifts, by any +promotion, by any means in this world brought from the love which for so +many the King’s high benefits of all men he ought (_owed_) his grace the +most?” His true friends are those who wish him dead, for only by death +can he escape “the gripes, the wounds, the tossing and turmoiling, the +heaving and shoving that traitors feel in their stomachs.” Probably God +leaves him alive “only because thy life hath many more torments, much +more shame in it, than any cruel death can have.... What greater shame +can come to thee than to be the dishonour of all thy kin, a comfort to +all thine enemies, a death to all thy friends?” “O Pole, O whirl pole, +full of poison, that wouldest have drowned thy country in blood.... God +be thanked thou art now a Pole of little water, and that at a wonderful +low ebb.” Moryson in fact is quite unable to keep off the subject of the +Cardinal, and always strays back to him. In another place he says: “Pole +came somewhat too late into France, at the last commotion. If he had +come in season, he would have played an hardier part than Aske did, he +would surely have jeopardied both his eyes, where Aske ventured but one. +He would have had not only a foot in their boat but in spite of Aske and +his company would have ruled the stern.” + +As an example of Moryson’s theology his remarks on the end of the +Pilgrimage are instructive. He is never tired of bidding England praise +God’s goodness in sending so wise and beneficent a Prince to reign over +her. She must also give praise for the ending of the rebellion without +bloodshed; God’s goodness was still further shown by His causing the +“rank captains” and deceivers of the people to commit further treason +and “testify upon the gallows that traitors must come to shameful +death.” And though the King in his mercy pardoned the common people, +“God hath this last summer by a strange kind of sickness well declared +unto the commons of the north that he was not contented so few were +punished where so many offended.” Also the plague had been in other +parts of the country, which, as God knew “had hearts evil enough, though +their deeds were unknown.”[1700] This is a particularly revolting form +of the ancient superstition that any great calamity is a punishment from +God, especially if it befalls an enemy. Men who sincerely love God have +striven against this relic of devil-worship ever since Euripides wrote:— + + “This land of murderers to its god hath given + Its own lust; evil dwelleth not in heaven”; + +but the superstition is not yet dead. + +Of the surviving members of the White Rose party, Sir Geoffrey was +pardoned early in the New Year[1701]. The Lady Marquis of Exeter +remained in the Tower, with the two boys, her son Edward Courtenay, who +was twelve years old, and Henry Pole “a child, the remaining hope of our +race,” as the Cardinal called him with a touch of human feeling[1702]. +Courtenay must have been a spirited boy even in his childhood. Some +months before, his schoolmaster had fled the Marquis’ household because +certain of the young gentlemen had threatened him for administering +correction to the young lord[1703]. The Countess of Salisbury was still +at Cowdray[1704]. + +Parliament met in April 1539 and sat until 28 June. During May it passed +an Act of Attainder including all who had suffered after the Pilgrimage, +Exeter and his friends, Cardinal Pole and other Englishmen who had fled +abroad; Gertrude Courtenay, Marchioness of Exeter, and Margaret Pole, +Countess of Salisbury[1705]. It has commonly been said that the two boys +were also attainted; but it can have been only by implication as an +examination of the Parliament Roll shows that they were not named[1706]. +An account of the passing of the Act was sent by a correspondent in +London to Lord Lisle:— + + “Pleaseth your lordship, so it is that there was a coat armour found + in the Duchess of Salisbury’s coffer, and by the one side of the coat + there was the King’s Grace his arms of England, that is the lions + without the flower de lys, and about the whole arms was made pansies + for Pole, and marygolds for my lady Mary. This was about the coat + armour. And betwixt the marygold and the pansy was made a tree to rise + in the midst, and on the tree a coat of purple hanging on a bough, in + token of the coat of Christ, and on the other side of the coat all the + Passion of Christ. Pole intended to have married my lady Mary and + betwixt them both should again arise the old doctrine of Christ. This + was the intent that the coat was made, as it is openly known in the + Parliament house, as Master Sir George Speke showed me. And thus my + lady Marquis, my lady Salisbury, Sir Adrian Fortescue, Sir Thomas + Dingley, with divers other are attainted to die by act of Parliament. + Other news here is none.... At London the xviiith day of May” + (1539)[1707]. + +Froude gives the following account: + + “A remarkable scene took place in the house of Lords on the last + reading of the act. As soon as it was passed Cromwell rose in his + place, and displayed in profound silence, a tunic of white silk which + had been discovered by Lord Southampton concealed amidst the Countess’ + linen.... It was shown, and it was doubtless understood, as conclusive + evidence of the disposition of the daughter of the Duke of Clarence + and the mother of Reginald Pole.”[1708] + +Of course such a piece of evidence cannot be conclusive. The work might +have been done years before, when a match between Mary and Reginald Pole +was proposed by Queen Katherine. The symbol of the Five Wounds was far +too common to fix the date as the time of the Pilgrimage. The Countess +may have been innocent; but we may prefer to believe she was guilty. It +is pleasant to think of her setting her maids to work when the first +news came from the north, and of all the prayers for the faith and the +hopes for her banished son that must have gone to the embroidering. The +bill was passed on 12 May and shortly after she was removed from Cowdray +to the Tower. This change must have been very welcome, for Southampton +and his lady had treated her with all discourtesy, and in the Tower she +would be near her grandson[1709]. + +She spent two years in the Tower. Her experience there and that of the +Lady Marquis may be gathered from a petition presented on their behalf +to a Privy Councillor by the kind-hearted warder, Thomas Philips, who +had given Sir Nicholas Carew the English Testament[1710]. “By reason +that I am daily conversant with them that are pensive,” he wrote, “(_I_) +can no less do but utter the same to your honourable lordship.” The Lady +Marquis begs favour and “saith she wanteth raiment, and hath no change +but only that that your lordship commanded to be provided.” Her +gentlewoman, Mistress Constance Bontane, “hath no manner of change and +that that she hath is sore worn. Another gentlewoman she hath, that is +Master Comptroller’s maid, and hath been with her one whole year and +more, and very sorry is she that she hath not to recompense them, at the +least their wages.” Finally, “the Lady Salisbury maketh great moan for +that she wanteth necessary apparel both for to change and also to keep +her warm.”[1711] + +This petition must have been presented before April 1540, when the Lady +Marquis was released[1712]; it was expected at the time that the old +Countess would be pardoned shortly. But she remained alone, except for +her waiting woman and the two boys, who were not kept very close and +would probably be allowed to see her. + +On 1 March, 1541, the Council sent an order to the Queen’s tailor for +certain apparel and necessaries for the Countess[1713]. All thanks be to +Thomas Philips who has left one kindly story to adorn the Tower; he had +been himself a prisoner there some years before[1714]. In April the +clothes were delivered:—“a night-gown furred, a kirtle of worsted and +petticoat furred, another gown of the fashion of night-gown of saye, +lined with satin of Cyprus and faced with satin, a bonnet with a +frontlet, four pairs of hose, four pairs of shoes and a pair of +slippers.” But the Countess did not long enjoy this ample +provision[1715]. + +In May 1541 Henry was about to set out on his gorgeous progress through +the north[1716]. Before he left London the Tower was cleared of +traitors[1717]. The Countess was the first to suffer, at seven o’clock +on the morning of May 27. Chapuys briefly records the event:— + + “About the same time took place the lamentable execution of the + Countess of Salisbury at the Tower, in the presence of the Lord Mayor + and about one hundred and fifty persons. When informed of her + sentence, she found it very strange, not knowing her crime; but she + walked to the space in front of the Tower, where there was no + scaffold, but only a small block. There she commended her soul to God, + and desired those present to pray for the King, Queen, Prince and + Princess.”[1718] + +The Lady Marquis of Exeter had been pardoned a year before[1719], and +her son, who was still a prisoner, lived to be set free by Queen +Mary[1720]. The Countess suffered under the Act of Attainder without any +trial; the two boys were not even included in the Act[1721]; and were +simply held by a sovereign power that no one dared to question. Henry +Pole had been allowed to go about inside the Tower before his +grandmother’s death; after it he was more strictly guarded. “It is to be +supposed that he will follow his father and grandmother,” wrote +Chapuys[1722]. Edward Courtenay had a tutor, but Henry Pole was “poorly +and strictly kept, and not allowed to know anything.”[1723] He is last +mentioned in 1542[1724]. Nothing more is known of him. The Tower must +have been an unhealthy place for any child, and this one was an orphan +without friends. He had, indeed, two uncles living. The Cardinal was +helpless, for if he had attempted interference through the Emperor it +would certainly have had an unhappy effect. Perhaps Sir Geoffrey did all +he dared and lost touch with the boy on his closer confinement. He was, +besides, hardly responsible for his actions. + +Southampton, of all people least inclined to mercy, advised that Pole’s +assault on John Gunter should be overlooked “considering the ill and +frantic furious nature of the unhappy man.”[1725] An account of his +subsequent life is given in the Spanish Chronicle. Although the greater +part of this work is entirely untrustworthy, particular passages may be +accepted when the writer describes facts which he had himself witnessed, +and his account of Sir Geoffrey Pole is fairly reliable because there is +reason to believe that the Chronicle was written at Liége while Geoffrey +was living there[1726]. The Chronicler gives the following story of how +Sir Geoffrey crossed the seas at last[1727]. After he was pardoned “he +went about for two years like one terror-stricken, and, as he lived four +miles from Chichester, he saw one day in Chichester a Flemish ship into +which he resolved to get and with her he passed over to Flanders, +leaving his wife and children. Thence he found his way to Rome, and +throwing himself at the feet of his brother the Cardinal, he said, “My +lord, I do not deserve to call myself your brother for I have been the +cause of our brother’s death.” The Cardinal, seeing he had sinned +through ignorance, pardoned him, and brought him to the feet of the +Pope, and procured forgiveness and absolution for his sin. Then the +Cardinal sent him back to Flanders, with letters to the Bishop of Liége, +who has him with him to this day, treating him with all honour, and +allowing him a ducat a day, and food for himself, two attendants and a +horse.”[1728] + +It was quite right of the Cardinal to forgive Sir Geoffrey; but should +all the forgiveness have been on one side? Geoffrey, yielding to +circumstances, had endured all that Reginald had escaped by taking his +own path. Reginald had been in safety while Geoffrey had seen +imprisonment and despair. Did the man whose uprightness had brought ruin +on all he loved never for a moment accuse himself? When the Cardinal +first heard the news of his mother’s death, he spoke of it in these +words: “Until now I had thought God had given me the grace of being the +son of one of the best and most honoured ladies in England, and I +gloried in it, returning thanks to His Divine Majesty; but now He has +vouchsafed to honour me still more by making me the son of a martyr.... +Let us rejoice for we have another advocate in Heaven.”[1729] Perhaps it +is because this speech has an appearance of having been thought out +beforehand that it sounds cold and even heartless. The Cardinal seems +more human in a letter written to one of Montague’s daughters, who, +after Mary’s accession, sent him good news of herself and her children, +the first he had received from his kinsfolk for many years:—“Albeit as I +say all this did comfort me greatly, yet I ensure you I could not read +your whole letter through, though it were not long, at all one time, for +the sorrowful remembrance it brought me of the loss of those which I +left in good state at my departing, to whom you were most dearest. But +when I consider even what servants of God they were and so died, this +ever doth comfort me with that certain hope of their good estate in all +felicity to the which all we trust to come when it shall be God’s +pleasure to call us.”[1730] + +NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIII + + Note A. The internal dissensions of the College of Heralds are + described at length in Lancaster Herald’s statement, L. and P. XIII + (1), 1313. The details are intimate and rather sordid. + + Note B. L. and P. XIII (2), preface; Haile’s Life of Cardinal Pole, + chap. XII. The Romanist writers do not generally add that the same + letter contains a kindly appeal for a well-famed priory, the head of + which “is old and feedeth many.... Alas! my good lord, shall we not + see two or three in each shire changed to such remedy?”[1731] + + Note C. This is founded on a half-intelligible note, L. and P. XIII + (2), 830, at the bottom of page 342. For such evidence as remains see + L. and P. XIV (1), 189 and 190. + + Note D. Henry Pole and Edward Courtenay were, however, excepted by + name from a general pardon confirmed by Parliament 16 July 1540[1732]. + The latter appears to have been liberated for a time in 1547[1733]. + + Note E. Sir Geoffrey Pole probably fled from England after his assault + on Gunter in 1540. He was amnestied and returned to England in + 1551[1734]. He died in 1558[1735]. + + + + + CHAPTER XXIV + CONCLUSION + + +The Pilgrimage of Grace failed completely. Its only result was to hasten +the very events which the Pilgrims dreaded. The greater monasteries were +suppressed, the north was bridled by the Council of the North, the Poles +were all but exterminated. It is not a sufficient explanation of this +failure to say that the Pilgrims were contending against the spirit of +the age. Although certain revolutions in thought are broadly speaking +inevitable, a reaction may have a temporary success, and may delay or +modify the operation of the changes. The immediate causes of the +Pilgrims’ failure have appeared in the course of this history and may be +summarised here:— + +(1) The most striking was the Pilgrims’ fundamental misconception of +Henry’s character. They believed him to be a weak, good-tempered +sensualist, always the tool of some favourite. Consequently they thought +that if only the King could be given ministers who shared their own +views of public matters, they would be able to guide his policy without +difficulty. Henry himself took some pains to hide his despotic temper +and his iron will under a mask of careless good humour, and with his +northern subjects the deception was completely successful. The Pilgrims +never realised that to change the King’s policy they must change the +King; on the contrary they professed loyalty to the King’s person and +would not countenance pretenders. They saw that it would be more +convenient to be able to change the policy of the government by changing +the chief ministers, than by the old method of deposing or killing the +King, as in the case of Richard II, Henry VI, and Richard III, but the +theory of ministerial responsibility had not yet developed, and it did +not accord with the facts of the case. + +(2) Closely connected with this first blunder is a marked weakness in +the opposition to Henry. It had no leader of genius. The leaders of the +Pilgrimage were honest men and men of ability, but they were nothing +more. They had not the unconquerable energy needed to withstand Henry’s +determination and the sinister power of Thomas Cromwell. They were +brave, they were unselfish, they were lovable, but all that counts for +nothing. Henry possessed none of these qualities, but he had that force +of character which alone is able to carry through great designs. He +stamped himself upon the memory of the nation, while the names of the +Pilgrims are forgotten. + +(3) These reasons for failure may seem too personal to suit scientific +history, but there were other weaknesses in the Pilgrims’ movement of a +more general nature. The chief of these was the conflict between the +interests of the gentlemen and of the commons. + +The gentlemen wanted certain parliamentary reforms. If they could obtain +them, they would be able to redress their own grievances. The commons +wanted certain social reforms, which they were much more likely to +obtain from the King than from Parliament. Briefly the gentlemen wanted +higher rents and lower wages, while the commons wanted lower rents and +higher wages. It seemed impossible that anything could reconcile these +discordant aims. + +(4) There was one power strong enough to bring the gentlemen and the +commons together, a power which might have so united and inspired them +as to carry them through to victory. This was the power of the Church. +Yet though the force of religion accomplished much, the clergy of +England, as a body, gave little countenance to the Pilgrims. The lower +clergy, both regular and secular, devoted themselves to the cause, but +the higher ecclesiastics were supine. The bishops who really opposed the +King’s innovations, such as Tunstall, fled from the rebels. The +Archbishop of York and most of the abbots who were forced to join them +were reluctant to share their danger, and gave them no encouragement. +The Papacy was inert. Cardinal Pole refused to stir. The Pope was +anxious to help the movement, but he was baffled by the passive +indifference of the men through whom he might have acted. This inaction +to a great extent caused the failure of the most promising attempt to +preserve the Church of Rome which was ever made in England. + +The reluctance of the higher clergy to take part in the Pilgrimage was +due to the principles in which they had been brought up. The Church had +always taught that obedience to the King was a duty second only in +importance to obedience to the Church. In return the King had protected +the Church against heresy. Henry VIII had suddenly broken the old +alliance in the most startling manner, but ecclesiastics could not all +at once throw over their old political theories. The Church of Rome was +the church of tradition and authority; her priests preached law and +order and submission to the appointed governors temporal and spiritual. +They could not suddenly take up the opposite watch-words, and ally +themselves with the partisans of freedom and reform. They were dazed and +terrified by the overthrow of the old order, and in their bewilderment +they stood aside while the Pilgrims marched to death, without attempting +to add the weight of the Church to her champions’ cause. + +The Papacy ignored the Pilgrims while they lived and forgot them after +their death; they were not sufficiently well-born to do her credit. To +this day those who are curious in such matters may find recorded in +Roman Catholic calendars the death of Bishop Tunstall and of the Blessed +Thomas Percy, Sir Thomas’ son, the seventh Earl of Northumberland, but +there is not a word concerning Robert Aske, who was more steadfast in +his faith than the first, more nearly successful than the second, and +morally a better man than either. + +The points enumerated were the sources of the Pilgrims’ two great +errors, over-confidence in themselves and over-trust in the King. They +were over-confident because they had been taught that the Church was +irresistible. Hence they had no doubt that their cause must triumph, and +they imagined that the victory was theirs when the struggle had scarcely +begun. They trusted the King too much because they misconceived his +character. They believed him to be weak but well-meaning, whereas he was +strong but unscrupulous. + +Among the causes of their failure need not be reckoned the lack of +foreign assistance. It was an advantage to the Pilgrims that +interference from abroad did not arouse national feeling in Henry’s +favour. This abstinence on the part of the continental powers was due to +accident, not policy. Francis I and Charles V fully intended some time +to settle English affairs each in his own way, but the time never +arrived. At every crisis in England it happened to be inconvenient for +either of the great rivals to stir in the matter, but on every occasion, +particularly after the Pilgrimage, they excused their inaction to the +Pope by saying that the movement had been premature, but that there +would be no difficulty in rousing a fresh revolt at a more suitable +opportunity. + +Henry knew better than that. He was thoroughly aware that a king is +never so powerful as when he has crushed a rebellion. The leaders of the +opposition are dead, the rank and file are frightened into silence, the +waverers are confirmed in their allegiance. Henry took advantage of this +interval to put in force all the measures against the Church upon which +he had resolved, but when the attempt at revolt was almost forgotten on +the continent, Henry began to remember it. + +Many influences united to bring about Cromwell’s fall and the religious +reaction at the end of the reign. Among these influences should probably +be reckoned the numerical strength of the religious conservatives +revealed by the Pilgrimage. After the blow which they had received had +spent its first effect, they might once more be dangerous. Henry had +escaped the first time, but he might not be so successful the second. +The memory of his treachery would be against him. Therefore he +forestalled opposition by bringing about a small reaction of his own, +which he could control. By this means he satisfied all but a few +extremists, whom he did not fear. This is not put forward as the sole +cause of Henry’s change of policy, but it was probably one of the +causes. + +After Henry’s death the moderate reaction was swept away by violent +religious changes, which oscillated from extreme to extreme. The only +effect of the Pilgrimage disappeared, and from that day to this the +movement has been regarded as a picturesque episode having no real +bearing on national history. Yet if not noteworthy in its effects, it +had a political significance, which Henry VIII was the first to +perceive. The important feature of the rising was the union between the +gentlemen and the commons. + +For the previous two hundred years revolts in England had been in +character either feudal, that is, led by some great lord for his +personal aggrandisement and supported by his relations and dependents, +or social, blind outbreaks of the common people, due to general +discontent, leaderless and without any definite purpose. Against risings +of these types the King’s best ally had been the middle class, the +country gentlemen, the burgesses, the professional men, priests and +lawyers. The middle class hated equally the tyranny of the nobles and +the anarchy of the commons. In return for their constant support the +King shared with them the greater part of the executive government. The +gentlemen passed laws in parliament and administered them in the country +as magistrates; they voted the taxes and assessed them; they called out +the musters and commanded them. They were the chief support of the +throne, and if they were alienated from the King the royal power would +totter. + +The interests of the middle class were so closely bound up with those of +a strong central government, and so much opposed to those of the +labouring classes, that it seemed impossible for the alliance between +King and gentlemen to be weakened. The Pilgrimage of Grace was the first +indication of the manner in which this alliance was to be broken. A +difference in creed was powerful enough to divide the gentlemen from the +King; a similarity in creed was powerful enough to unite a very large +proportion of the gentlemen and commons in spite of their previous +antagonism. So long as practically everyone in England belonged to the +same Church, the common creed was not felt as a bond of union, but now +that religious dissensions had inevitably arisen, the aspect of the +political world was altered. + +Henry quickly grasped the significance of the alliance between the +gentlemen and commons, and used all his arts to destroy it. At the time +he was successful. The wrongs which the commons had suffered were too +recent and bitter for the new-found allies to be able to resist so +skilful an opponent as the King. Dissension and suspicion awoke, and the +power which might have held them together, the power of the Church, was +not employed to help them. The Pilgrimage fell to pieces and ended in +disunion. The revolts in Edward VI’s reign, though led by minor country +gentlemen, were chiefly social, those in the reigns of his sisters were +feudal, and it was more than a century before the gentlemen and commons +again united to oppose the King. + +In Charles I’s reign the whole face of the nation had changed, but the +same forces were at work as those which had produced the Pilgrimage of +Grace. Religion was no longer hampered by timidity and tradition. The +new creed in which the puritans opposed the throne gave its whole +strength to the union and support of its champions. Many of the men who +opposed Charles I were lineal descendants of the Pilgrims. Philip and +Brian Stapleton, the great-great-grandsons of Christopher Stapleton, +both distinguished themselves in the cause of the Parliament. Richard +Aske, the great-great-grandson of young Robert Aske, the nephew and +namesake of the grand captain, was one of the lawyers who drew up the +indictment of Charles I. The great Lord Fairfax was descended on his +father’s side from Sir Nicholas Fairfax, an enthusiastic Pilgrim, and on +his mother’s from young Robert Aske. Sir William Constable, who signed +the death-warrant of Charles I, was the great-great-grandson of Sir +Robert Constable. These are not mere genealogical freaks. The spirit +which had defied Henry VIII overwhelmed Charles I. + +Finally, in estimating the value of the Pilgrimage of Grace, its moral +importance must be taken into account. The following judgment has been +passed upon England in the reign of Henry VIII:— + + “The nation purchased political salvation at the price of moral + debasement; the individual was sacrificed on the altar of the State; + and popular subservience proved the impossibility of saving a people + from itself. Constitutional guarantees are worthless without the + national will to maintain them; men lightly abandon what they lightly + hold; and, in Henry’s reign, the English spirit of independence burned + low in its socket, and love of freedom grew cold. The indifference of + his subjects to political issues tempted Henry along the path to + tyranny.”[1736] + +The Pilgrimage of Grace removes a part of this responsibility from the +shoulders of the nation. It was a matter of the utmost moment to her +future regeneration that, in an age of selfish cruelty and materialism, +there were men who willingly died for justice and freedom, who still +cherished the ideal of “England’s ancient liberties,” which were not +less inspiring because they had never existed. If the flame of +independence burned low, at least their hands were ready to pass on the +torch, still unextinguished, and England is not yet last in the race. + + + + + LIST OF WORKS CITED + + + [Those marked with an asterisk contain copies of original documents + relating to the Pilgrimage of Grace or the Exeter Conspiracy] + + *Acts of the Northern Convocation, ed. G. W. Kitchin (Surtees Society) + (1907). + + *Acts of the Privy Council, vol. II, ed. J. R. Dasent (1890). + + *ANSTIS, J. The Order of the Garter (1724). + + *_The Antiquary_ (1880). + + *_Archaeologia_, vol. XVI (1812). + + _Archaeologia Aeliana_ (new series), vols. III (1859), XVI (1894). + + *_Archaeological Journal_, vols. XIV (1856), XXV (1868). + + BAILDON, W. P. Monastic Notes, vol. I (Yorkshire Archaeological + Society Record Series) (1895). + + *Ballads from MSS. vol. I, ed. F. J. Furnivall (Ballad Society) + (1868). + + *BAPST, E. Deux Gentilshommes Poètes de la Cour de Henry VIII (1891). + + *BATES, C. Border Holds (1891). + + BAX, E. B. The Peasants’ War in Germany 1524–5 (1899). + + *BECK, T. A. Annales Furnesienses (1844). + + Beverley Town Documents, ed. A. F. Leach (Selden Society) (1900). + + BERENS, L. H. The Digger Movement (1906). + + Boldon Buke, ed. W. Greenwell (Surtees Society) (1852). + + BOOTHROYD, S. History of Pontefract (1807). + + BRAND, J. History of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1789). + + BRENAN, G. and STATHAM, E. P. The House of Howard (1907). + + BREWER, J. S. The Reign of Henry VIII to the Death of Wolsey (1884). + + *BURNET, G. History of the Reformation in England (1865). + + Calendar of Inner Temple Records, ed. F. A. Inderwick (1896). + + Calendar of Spanish State Papers, vol. V (2), ed. P. de Gayangos + (1888). + + Calendar of Venetian State Papers, vol. V, ed. R. Brown (1873). + + Cambridge Modern History, vol. II, The Reformation (1903). + + CAVENDISH, G. Life of Wolsey, ed. S. W. Singer (1827). + + Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London (Camden Society) (1852). + + *Collection of Letters of Princes, ed. L. Howard (1753). + + *Cooper, C. H. Annals of Cambridge (1842–1908). + + Correspondance Politique de MM. de Castillon et de Marillac, ed. J. + Kaulek (1885). + + *Correspondence of Edward 3rd Earl of Derby, ed. J. N. Toller (Chetham + Society) (1890). + + COX, J. C. Churchwardens’ Accounts (The Antiquary’s Books) (1913). + + *COX, J. C. William Stapleton and the Pilgrimage of Grace, reprinted + from the Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, vol. + X (1902). + + *CRANMER, T. Works, ed. J. E. Cox (Parker Society) (1844–6). + + CUNNINGHAM, W. The Growth of English Industry and Commerce (1905). + + *Depositions and Ecclesiastical Proceedings at York Castle (Surtees + Society) (1861). + + *Deputy Keeper’s Reports on the Public Records, vols. III (1842), XLIV + (1883). + + Dicey, A. V. The Privy Council (1887). + + Dictionary of National Biography. + + Dixon, R. W. History of the Church of England (1878). + + *Documents relating to the History of the Church of England, ed. H. + Gee and W. J. Hardy (1896). + + *DODD, C. (H. Tootell). Church History of England, ed. M. A. Tierney + (1839–43). + + *Domesday of Inclosures, ed. I. S. Leadam (Royal Historical Society) + (1904). + + DOWELL, S. History of Taxation in England (1888). + + DRAKE, F. Eboracum (1736). + + DUFF, E. GORDON. English Provincial Printers to 1557 (1912). + + *Durham Account Rolls, ed. J. T. Fowler (Surtees Society) (1898–1901). + + Early English Dramatists, Anonymous Plays, vol. II, ed. J. S. Farmer + (Early English Drama Society) (1906). + + *_English Historical Review_, vols. V (1890), XXVIII (1913). + + FERGUSON, R. S. Westmorland (1894). + + *FLOWER, W. Visitation of Yorkshire, ed. C. B. Norcliffe (Harleian + Society) (1881). + + *FONBLANQUE, E. B. DE. Annals of the House of Percy (1887). + + *FOSTER, J. Durham Visitation Pedigrees (1887). + + *FOSTER, J. Yorkshire Visitation Pedigrees (1874). + + FOSTER, J. _Collectanea Genealogica_, vol. X (1881–5). + + FOXE, J. Book of Martyrs, ed. J. Milner (1863). + + *FROST, C. History of Hull (1827). + + FROUDE, J. A. Essays on Literature and History (1906). + + *FROUDE, J. A. History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the + Defeat of the Armada (1856–70). + + GAIRDNER, J. Richard III (1878). + + GAIRDNER, J. The English Church in the 16th Century from the Accession + of Henry VIII to the Death of Mary (History of the English Church + Series) (1902). + + GAIRDNER, J. Lollardy and the Reformation (1908). + + GASQUET, F. A. Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (1888). + + GASQUET, F. A. The Eve of the Reformation (1900). + + _The Gentleman’s Magazine_ (1754) (1835). + + *GLOVER, R. Visitation of Yorkshire, ed. J. Foster (1875). + + GOWER, LORD RONALD SUTHERLAND LEVESON. The Tower of London (1901–2). + + HAILE, MARTIN. Life of Cardinal Pole (1910). + + HALL, E. The Union of the Families of Lancaster and York (1809). + + HALLAM, H. Constitutional History of England (1827). + + Halmota Prioratus Dunelmensis, ed. J. Booth (Surtees Society) (1889). + + *Hamilton Papers, ed. J. Bain (1890–2). + + *HARDWICK, C. History of the Articles (1884). + + HARLAND, J. The Monastery of Salley (1853). + + HERBERT, LORD, OF CHERBURY. The Reign of Henry VIII (ed. 1672). + + *Historical MSS. Commission, Report VI (1878). + + _History_ (1913), (1914). + + HOLDSWORTH, W. S. History of English Law (1903–9). + + HOLINSHED, R. Chronicles (1807). + + HOLME, WILFRED. The Fall and Evil Success of Rebellion (1572). + + HOWARD, H., Earl of Northampton. A Defensative against the Poison of + Supposed Prophecies (1583). + + HUNTER, J. History of South Yorkshire (1828). + + LANG, A. James VI and the Gowrie Mystery (1902). + + LANG, A. History of Scotland (1900). + + LAPSLEY, G. T. The County Palatine of Durham (Harvard Historical + Series) (1900). + + *LATIMER, H. Sermons and Remains, ed. G. E. Corrie (Parker Society) + (1844–5). + + *Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, vols. XI, XII (1) and (2), XIII (1) + and (2), and others, ed. J. Gairdner (1888) (1890–1). + + *Letters of the Kings of England, ed. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps + (1846). + + *Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies, ed. M. A. Everett Wood + (Green) (1846). + + _The Library_ (1913). + + LODGE, S. Scrivelsby. + + *LONGSTAFF, W. H. D. A Leaf from the Pilgrimage of Grace (1846). + + *LONGSTAFF, W. H. D. History of Darlington (1854). + + MAITLAND, F. W. English Law and the Renaissance (1901). + + *MERRIMAN, R. B. Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell (1902). + + *MILNER, E. and BENHAM, E. Records of the House of Lumley (1904). + + *Miscellaneous State Papers, ed. the Earl of Hardwicke (1778). + + MORE, Sir T. Richard III (1883). + + MORE, Sir T. Selections from his writings, ed. T. E. Bridget (1892). + + MORRIS, J. The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers (1872–7). + + MORYSON, R. An Invective against Treason (1539). + + MURRAY, J. A. H. Thomas of Ercildoun (Early English Text Society) + (1875). + + *NICOLSON, J. and BURN, R. History of Westmorland and Cumberland + (1777). + + North Country Wills, ed. J. W. Clay (Surtees Society) (1908). + + *_Notes and Queries_, 11th series, vols. IV (1911), VIII (1913). + + *NOTT, G. F. Lives of the Earl of Surrey and Sir Thomas Wyatt with + their works (1815–16). + + ORD, J. W. History of Cleveland (1846). + + *Original Letters illustrative of English History, ed. Sir H. Ellis + (1825–46). + + PARK, G. R. Parliamentary Representation of Yorkshire (1886). + + PLANTAGENET-HARRISON, G. H. History of Yorkshire (1879). + + *Plumpton Correspondence (Camden Society) (1839). + + *POLLARD, A. F. The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources + (1914). + + POLLARD, A. F. Henry VIII (1905). + + POLLOCK, Sir F. The Land Laws (English Citizen Series) (1883). + + PORRITT, E. P. and A. G. The Unreformed House of Commons (1903). + + POWELL, E. The Rising in East Anglia in 1381 (1896). + + *Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, ed. Sir N. H. + Nicolas (Record Commission) (1834–7). + + *RAINE, J. Memorials of Hexham Priory (Surtees Society) (1864–5). + + Return of the Names of all Members of Parliament 1213–1874 (Blue + Book). + + *Richmondshire Wills, ed. J. Raine (Surtees Society) (1853). + + Rites and Monuments of Durham, ed. J. T. Fowler (Surtees Society) + (1903). + + ROSE-TROUP, F. The Western Rebellion of 1549 (1913). + + ROUND, J. H. Peerage Studies (1901). + + _Royal Historical Society’s Transactions_, vol. XVIII (1904). + + *RUSSELL, F. W. Ket’s Rebellion (1859). + + SANDERS, N. De Origine ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani (1585). + + SCOTT, J. Berwick-upon-Tweed (1888). + + SEEBOHM, F. The Oxford Reformers (1867). + + Select Cases in the Court of Chancery, ed. W. P. Baildon (Selden + Society) (1896). + + *Select Cases in the Court of Star Chamber, ed. I. S. Leadam (Selden + Society) (1903). + + SHARP, Sir C. Memorials of the Rebellion of 1569 (1841). + + Spanish Chronicle of King Henry VIII, ed. M. A. S. Hume (1889). + + SPEED, J. Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine (1611). + + *SPEED, J. History of Great Britaine (1632). + + Star Chamber Cases, Index (Index Society) (1901). + + *State Papers during the Reign of Henry VIII, vol. I, Domestic (Record + Commission) (1830). + + *Statutes and Constitutional Documents 1559–1625, ed. G. W. Prothero + (1898). + + Statutes of the Realm (1810–28). + + *STEVENS, J. History of antient abbeys, monasteries, hospitals, + cathedrals, and collegiate churches, being two additional volumes + to Dugdale’s Monasticon (1722–3). + + STOW, J. Chronicle (1615). + + *STRYPE, J. Ecclesiastical Memorials (1822). + + STUBBS, W. Constitutional History of England (1883). + + *SURTEES, R. History of Durham (1816). + + SWALLOW, H. J. De Nova Villa (1885). + + TAWNEY, R. H. The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century (1912). + + *Testamenta Eboracensia, ed. J. Raine (Surtees Society) (1836). + + THOMAS, W. The Pilgrim, ed. J. A. Froude (1861). + + *TONGE, T. Visitation of Yorkshire in 1530, ed. J. Raine (Surtees + Society) (1863). + + *_Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society_, vols. VI + (1898), X (1902). + + TREVELYAN, G. M. England in the Age of Wycliffe (1904). + + *TURNER, J. H. Yorkshire Anthology (1901). + + USHER, R. G. The Rise and Fall of the High Commission (1913). + + Valor Ecclesiasticus (Record Commission) (1810–34). + + Victoria County History of Cumberland, vols. I and II (1901–5). + + Victoria County History of Durham, vols. I and II (1905–7). + + *Visitation Articles and Injunctions, ed. W. H. Frere and W. M. + Kennedy (Alcuin Society) (1910). + + *Visitation of Lincolnshire, ed. A. R. Maddison (Harleian Society) + (1902–6). + + WEIR, G. Historical Sketches of Horncastle (1820). + + West Riding Sessions Rolls and Proceedings of the Council of the + North, ed. J. Lister (Yorkshire Archaeological Society’s Record + Series) (1888). + + WHITAKER, T. D. History of Richmondshire (1823). + + WHITAKER, T. D. Whalley and the Honour of Clitheroe (1818). + + *WILKINS, D. Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae (1737). + + *WILSON, J. The Monasteries of Cumberland and Westmorland (1899). + + WRIGHT, T. History of Halifax (1834). + + *WRIGHT, T. Three Chapters of Letters on the Suppression of the + Monasteries (Camden Society) (1834). + + WRIOTHESLEY, C. Chronicle (Camden Society) (1875–7). + + *York City Records in MSS. + + *_Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical Journal_, vols. II + (1873), VIII (1884), XI (1891), XIII (1895), XXI (1911). + + *Yorkshire Star Chamber Proceedings, ed. W. Brown (Yorkshire + Archaeological Society’s Record Series) (1909–11). + + + + + INDEX + + + Aberdeen, II, 253 + + Aberdeen, the Bishop of. _See_ Stewart, William + + Abergavenny, George Neville, Lord, I, 14, 15; II, 293 + + Acclom, John, I, 186 + + Acclom (Aclom), William, I, 186, 278–9, 312, 345; II, 38, 218–9 + + Acklam, II, 66, 131 + + Acomb, I, 231 + + Adderstone, I, 199 + + Addison, Dr, II, 259 + + Admiral, the Lord. _See_ Fitzwilliam, Sir William + + Aglabe, Dr, II, 193 + + Aglionby, Edward, II, 9, 42, 122 + + Ainstey of York, I, 168, 174–5, 181, 262 + + Aire, the river, I, 234, 282, 300 + + Aldham, the parson of, II, 185 + + Alford, I, 100 + + Allerton, —, I, 345 + + Alne Abbey, Flanders, II, 285 + + Alnmouth, II, 254 + + Alnwick, I, 198, 199, 200, 201; II, 28, 41, 42 + Castle, I, 198, 199 + the Abbot of, I, 198 + + Amarton (Hamerton?), Harry, II, 43 + + Ambrogio (Ambrosius de Recalcatis), papal secretary, I, 336 + + America, I, 2 + + Amersham, I, 244 + + Ampthill, I, 117, 118, 119, 123, 241–7, 324, 330; II, 267 + + Anabaptists, the, I, 346 + + Ancaster, I, 109, 111, 114, 119, 129; II, 155 + + Ancrum Moor, I, 211–2 + + Angoulême, the Duke of. _See_ Orleans, the Duke of + + Annan, the Earl of, I, 211 + + Annates. _See_ First Fruits + + Anne, St, I, 43 + + Anthony, a canon of Watton, II, 59 + + Antwerp, I, 336 + + Appleby, II, 28, 120 + a friar of, II, 266 + + Appleby, Alexander, I, 299 + + Applegarth, Thomas, I, 58 + + Appointment at Doncaster, the First. _See_ Truce of Doncaster + + Appointment at Doncaster, the Second. _See_ Pilgrimage of Grace, the + Second Appointment at Doncaster + + Arbroath, the Abbot of. _See_ Beaton, David + + Army, the Royal + character of the forces, I, 123; II, 55, 170 + disaffection in, I, 134, 219, 233, 264, 265, 269, 302–3, 326, 327, + 329, 330; II, 36 + disbands, I, 270, 327 + discipline, I, 305 + its condition at Doncaster, I, 257, 260, 268 + finances, I, 134, 206, 244, 245, 246–7, 248, 251, 279, 294, 296, + 320, 330, 331; II, 8 + at Flodden, I, 272 + in Lincs., I, 122–3,128–30, 168, 281–2, 299, 319; II, 8, 11, 24 + musters, I, 108, 113, 119, 132–3, 134, 140, 148, 241–2, 243, 244–5, + 247, 273, 326; II, 7–8, 52–3, 170, 289 + numbers, I, 257 + ordnance, I, 119, 122, 128, 129, 130, 134, 135, 136, 241, 247, 250, + 259, 324, 327; II, 11, 24, 26, 48 + in touch with the Pilgrims, I, 251, 255–6 + spies from, I, 119, 287, 289, 324; II, 3 + uniform. _See_ Badge, St George’s Cross + its weakness, I, 122, 249, 250, 253, 254, 257, 278, 279 + its position during the rebels’ advance on York, I, 174 + advance to Yorkshire, I, 244–50 + reference, I, 153, 166 + + Arras, Yorks., II, 48 + + Array, Statute of, I, 65; II, 243 + + Arthur, Prince, son of Henry VII, I, 14 + + Articles of the rebels. _See_ Demands of the rebels + + Articles of Religion, the Ten, I, 9, 10, 266, 324, 343, 352, 353, 374, + 379, 380, 388; II, 9, 164, 166 + + Arundel, Sir John, II, 141 + + Asheton, Thomas, I, 344 + + Ashton (Esch), Robert, I, 151, 153, 163; II, 266 + + Aske, Yorks., I, 36, 39, 49; II, 180 + + Aske, family of, I, 49, 80; II, 92 + + Aske, Christopher, I, 49, 51–54, 61, 72, 141, 144, 145, 150, 208, 209, + 210, 295, 312, 313, 316; II, 131 + + Aske, Eleanor, wife of John, I, 51 + + Aske, Elizabeth, wife of Sir John, I, 40, 49 + + Aske, Elizabeth, wife of Sir Robert, I, 49 + + Aske, Sir John, I, 40, 49 + + Aske, John, I, 49, 50, 51, 54, 72, 105, 141, 144, 145, 149, 150, 151; + II, 136, 137, 210, 224 + + Aske, Richard, of Aughton, I, 49 + + Aske, Richard, brother of Robert, I, 61 + + Aske, Richard, II, 333 + + Aske, Sir Robert, II, 49–51, 54, 61 + + Aske, Robert + his account of the Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 191; II, 18, 19, 37, 50 + his appearance, I, 55; II, 3, 322 + announces the second appointment at Doncaster to the Pilgrims, II, + 16–17, 19, 20, 54 + his arrest, II, 38, 133, 207 + his articles. _See_ Demands of the rebels + his authority, I, 149, 185–6, 227, 262; II, 53, 322 + and Sir Francis Bigod, II, 57, 72–4, 89, 98, 102, 119, 131, 205 + his character, I, 54; II, 331 + and his brother Christopher, I, 210–1, 312–3 + his questions for the clergy, I, 342–3, 348, 352–3, 359–60, 362, + 377–8, 382, 386–7 + his council, I, 158, 181 + his criticism of the Government, I, 351, 364–6. + _See also_ Cromwell, Thos, and Robt Aske + and Lord Darcy, I, 168, 170, 186–7, 189, 291, 301, 312, 327; II, + 32–3, 48, 50, 53–4, 128, 188–9, 209, 223, 360 + and the Earl of Derby, I, 214–5, 227–8 + and the first conference at Doncaster, I, 252–4, 258–9, 265 + at the second conference at Doncaster, II, 13, 16–9 + his part in the East Riding insurrection, I, 141–2, 145–6, 148–9, + 155–7 + his examinations, I, 387; II, 134, 207–8, 223 + excepted from the first Yorkshire pardon, I, 273; II, 126 + his execution, I, 267; II, 194, 208, 220, 222–5, 264, 287 + evidence against, II, 92–3, 208–10, 225 + his family and relatives, I, 40, 49–55, 80, 141, 218, 289, 305–6; + II, 222, 333 + and the Pilgrims’ finances, I, 286; II, 209 + hostages demanded for him, I, 317; II, 3–4, 11–2, 23 + and the siege of Hull, I, 159–60, 164 + garrisons Hull, I, 285, 286 + his imprisonment, II, 207–8, 216 + attempts to kidnap him, I, 142, 168, 170, 204, 267, 289, 291, 292, + 294–8, 301, 304, 309, 311 + interview with Lancaster Herald, I, 228–30, 240; II, 300–1 + lays down his office, II, 17, 86, 98 + and Archbishop Lee. _See_ Lee, Archbishop, and Robert Aske + letters attributed to him, I, 145–6, 289; II, 84, 208 + and the Lincs. Articles, I, 156, 174 + in the Lincs. Rebellion, I, 105–7, 139, 141, 142, 143, 289; II, 209 + and the messengers to the King, I, 291, 308–9 + his moderation, I, 257, 258, 315 + and the monasteries, I, 51, 233, 251, 285, 286, 287, 317, 348–9; II, + 20, 38, 39, 58, 83, 84, 209 + and the Duke of Norfolk, I, 267, 289–91, 312; II, 102, 104, 130, + 131, 138, 147, 208, 209, 211, 220, 224–5 + and the Earl of Northumberland, I, 283–5; II, 183 + pacifies the north, II, 48, 49, 50, 51, 104 + his papers, II, 38, 210, 211 + his pardon, II, 32, 209, 224 + his petitions, II, 207, 208, 222–3 + calls the rebellion the Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 157 + composes the Pilgrims’ oath. _See_ Oath of the Pilgrimage of Grace + his company of pilgrims, I, 262 + at the musters at Pontefract, I, 233, 237, 238–9 + and the surrender of Pontefract, I, 181, 185–91, 302; II, 127 + at the council at Pontefract, I, 344–6, 353, 361, 384, 385, 387; II, + 10, 12 + his proclamations. _See_ Proclamations, Rebel + promises of help from Lincs., II, 151, 223 + promises of help from the West Marches, I, 304 + his property and early career, I, 54–5; II, 222 + his protection of Bigod’s followers, II, 78, 81, 89–92, 98, 131, 209 + his protection to loyalists, I, 232, 234, 278, 283, 306 + his reception at court, II, 32–3, 36–8, 45, 50, 217, 241 + reports of his agents, I, 256, 257; II, 151 + and the rumours of new laws, I, 78 + correspondence with southern sympathisers, I, 327–8, 332, 333; II, + 223 + his reported secession to the King, II, 3, 4, 45, 79, 89, 95 + his servants, I, 50; II, 32, 78, 210, 222 + and William Stapleton, I, 58, 157–9, 167, 235 + his trial, II, 135, 136, 140, 198, 206, 211 + announces the truce, I, 211, 220, 269, 279, 283 + and the alleged breaches of the truce, I, 292, 293, 314 + and the muster at Wighton Hill, I, 154, 157 + his headquarters at Wressell Castle, I, 285, 288, 293; II, 210 + and the council at York, I, 293, 312, 318 + the taking of York, I, 158, 160, 163, 174–5, 176, 178, 180 + reference, I, 36, 48, 61, 72, 79, 110, 168, 190, 216, 226, 230, 236, + 255, 264, 271, 310, 311, 347, 357; II, 105 + + Aske, Robert, the younger, I, 51, 105, 148–9, 235; II, 333 + + Aske, Roger, I, 36, 39; II, 180 + + Askew, Anne, II, 180 + + Askew, Christopher, I, 111, 116, 234, 244 + + Askew, Sir Christopher, I, 112–3, 116, 124 + + Askew Robert, I, 106 + + Askew, Sir William, I, 97–100, 110, 126; II, 180 + + Aslaby, James, I, 163, 203 + + Atkinson, James, I, 140 + + Atkinson, John, I, 71, 213, 216, 217, 218; II, 113, 144 + + Attainder, Acts of, I, 318; II, 153, 323–5 + + Auckland. _See_ Bishop Auckland + + Audley, Sir Thomas, Lord Chancellor, I, 26, 352, 353, 357, 358, 366–7; + II, 14, 186, 225, 258 + + Aughton, I, 40, 49, 51, 141, 142, 144, 150; II, 32, 39, 50, 84, 91, + 210 + + —— Church, I, 49, 54, 61 + + —— manor-house, I, 49, 55 + + Augustine, St, II, 57 + + Axholme, the Isle of, I, 100, 148–9, 282 + + Aylesbury, II, 165 + + Aylesham, II, 177 + + Ayrey, John, I, 345 + + Ayton, I, 84 + + + Babthorpe, William, I, 144, 145, 148, 150, 186, 238, 308, 309, 312, + 314, 316, 342, 345, 346, 357; II, 92, 104, 201, 229, 258, 260, + 271–2 + + Bachelor, Mr, I, 388 + + Badge + of Sir Robert Constable, I, 240 + of the Five Wounds of Christ, I, 19, 238–9, 240, 255, 261, 274; II, + 17, 190, 324 + St George’s Cross, I, 175, 245, 256; II, 77 + of the Howards, I, 245; II, 252 + of I.H.S., I, 255 + of the Princess Mary, II, 323 + of the northern families, I, 83 + of the Percys, I, 84, 232; II, 252 + of the Poles, I, 23; II, 323 + Tudor, I, 84–5 + + Bainton, II, 72–4 + + Baker, John, attorney-general, II, 200, 211 + + Bale, John, I, 43, 324; II, 166 + + Balliol, family of, I, 36 + + Balderstone, William, I, 101 + + Bamborough, I, 199; II, 41 + + Banister, Simon, I, 47 + + Bankes, Robert, I, 306 + + Banner + the church cross used as, I, 156, 175, 221, 236, 330; II, 114, 147 + of Sir Robert Constable, I, 336 + of the Cornish rebels, II, 171, 181 + of St Cuthbert, I, 205, 238, 261 + of the Five Wounds of Christ, I, 139, 238, 261, 344; II, 300 + the King’s, I, 119, 122; II, 119, 121, 122 + of the Lincs. rebels, I, 106, 114, 124, 129, 130, 139; II, 154 + + Bapst, M. ‘Deux Gentilshommes Poètes de la Cour de Henry VIII’, I, 272 + + Bardney Abbey, I, 104, 114; II, 152, 153, 154 + + Bardon, I, 211 + + Barker, William, I, 155, 160; II, 62 + + Barlings Abbey, I, 104, 107, 128; II, 138, 152, 153–5 + + Barlings, Abbot of. _See_ Mackerell, Matthew + + Barlings Grange, I, 107 + + Barlow, William, Bishop of St David’s, I, 67, 353. + _See also_ Demands of the rebels + + Barnard Castle, I, 36, 190, 202, 207, 237, 239; II, 28, 34, 44, 110, + 117, 128 + + Barnes, Robert, I, 68, 324, 346, 353 + + Barnesdale, I, 208, 252 + + Barnfield, John, II, 116 + + Barnsley, I, 208 + + Barton-on-Humber, I, 78, 104, 105, 282, 289, 301, 319 + + Barton, the bailiff of, I, 130 + + Barton, —, I, 345 + + Bashall in Bolland, I, 210; II, 211 + + Bateman, Harry, I, 345 + + Bath, I, 326 + + Bawne, George, I, 157 + + Baynton, Mary, I, 87 + + Baynton, Thomas, I, 87 + + Bax, E. B. ‘The Peasants’ War’, I, 78, 139–40, 225 + + Beacons, I, 104, 128, 143, 145, 148, 151, 153, 300, 318; II, 66, 96, + 106, 175 + + Beaconsfield, I, 247 + + Beamish, I, 33 + + Beaton, David, Privy Seal of Scotland, Abbot of Arbroath, II, 242, + 267, 268 + + Beauchamp, Viscount, II, 193, 206 + + Beck, John, I, 221 + + Becket, Thomas a, I, 64; II, 169 + + Beckwith, Leonard, I, 154, 234, 243, 278; II, 38, 80, 133, 138, 139, + 218, 219 + + Beckwith, Mrs, I, 234–5, 279 + + Bedall, I, 202 + + Bede, St, I, 83, 84, 86 + + Beetham, II, 106, 113 + + Belchford, I, 101, 124 + + Belchford, the vicar of. _See_ Leache, Nicholas + + Bell, John, II, 47 + + Bellasis, Richard, II, 272 + + Bellay, John du, Cardinal, I, 333, 334 + + Bellingham, II, 234 + + Bellingham, Sir Robert, I, 50, 218 + + Bellingham, Margaret, wife of Sir Robert, I, 50, 218 + + Bellowe, John, I, 95, 112, 126, 135, 165 + + Benefit of Clergy, Act limiting, I, 8, 355 + + Benham, II, 175 + + Bentham Moor, I, 218 + + Berlichingen, Gotz von, I, 140 + + Berwick upon Tweed, I, 35, 174, 187, 190, 192, 200, 201, 223, 225, + 239, 286; II, 9, 28, 34, 94, 104, 106, 228, 230, 231–3, 245, 246, + 248, 250, 254, 255, 261, 267 + + —— the mayor of, II, 248 + + Berwick pursuivant. _See_ Ray, Henry + + Berwick, Thomas, I, 221 + + Beswick, the parish clerk of. _See_ Marshall, Dr + + Beverley + and the Archbishop of York, I, 48, 143, 150 + Bigod’s appointed meeting-place, II, 61–3, 67, 80, 97 + Bigod at, II, 74–6, 78, 90 + the Grey Friars, I, 57, 146, 147 + rivalry with Hull, I, 159, 161, 282 + communications with the Lincs. rebels, I, 104, 115, 130, 145; II, + 156 + its liberties, I, 61, 355; II, 61 + meeting at, after the Pilgrimage, II, 48–51, 54, 59 + the Minster, I, 45 + outbreak of the rebellion at, I, 58, 115, 144–8, 151–60, 168, 201, + 208 + pardon proclaimed at, II, 27 + parliamentary representation of, I, 359, 388 + printing press at, I, 252 + sedition at, I, 78, 83, 144; II, 49, 51, 52, 56, 62 + the Tabard inn, I, 145 + the town hall, I, 145 + the town seal, I, 115, 146, 152 + West Wood Green, I, 145, 146, 147, 151, 152, 160; II, 90 + reference, I, 57, 79, 150, 164, 192, 235, 270, 273, 288, 298, 314; + II, 60, 72, 82, 87, 98, 102, 126, 194, 198, 266 + + Bewley, Richard, I, 222 + + Biggis, James, II, 178 + + Bigod, family of, I, 40 + + Bigod, Agnes, wife of Sir Ralph, I, 40 + + Bigod, Dorothy, I, 41 + + Bigod, Elizabeth, wife of Sir John, I, 40 + + Bigod, Sir Francis + his arrest, II, 106, 110, 133, 136 + his book on the King’s supremacy, I, 347; II, 57, 58, 60, 75, 211 + his chaplain. _See_ Pickering, John, priest + his character and opinions, I, 22, 43–44; II, 56, 71–2, 199 + his confession, II, 198–9 + early life and family, I, 40–41; II, 136, 185, 199 + his execution, II, 216 + his flight, II, 75–7, 80, 87, 88, 90 + and John Hallam, II, 57, 60–3, 65, 67, 72, 75, 213 + his insurrection, II, chap. xvii, pp. 55–98, 101, 104, 114, 126, + 131, 132, 158, 187, 188, 198, 199, 201–3, 205, 211–3 + and the monasteries, I, 42–3; II, 56, 58, 59, 60, 211 + his papers, II, 75, 205 + his share in the Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 205–6; II, 56–7 + a prisoner, II, 114, 118–9, 121, 198 + his speech to the rebels, II, 67–9 + his trial, II, 135, 136, 197–9 + reference, I, 214; II, 97, 111 + + Bigod, Joan, wife of Sir John, I, 40 + + Bigod, Sir John, the elder, I, 40 + + Bigod, Sir John, the younger, I, 40 + + Bigod, Katherine, wife of Sir Francis, I, 41–2; II, 87, 199 + + Bigod, Margaret, wife of Sir Ralph, I, 40 + + Bigod, Sir Ralph, I, 38, 40, 49 + + Bigod, Ralph, I, 40; II, 57, 59, 199 + + Bigod, Ralph, son of Sir Francis, II, 185 + + Bilborough, I, 180, 231 + + Bilsby, Sir Andrew, I, 100 + + Bilsdale, II, 97 + + Bird, John, I, 86 + + Bishop Auckland, I, 203, 204, 205, 206; II, 44, 66, 268 + + Bishop Burton, I, 159 + + Bishopdale, I, 210 + + Blackborne, Thomas, I, 53 + + Blackborne, William, vicar of Skipton, I, 53, 210 + + Blackburn, the proctor of, II, 169 + + Blackburn, the vicar of. _See_ Lynney, Randolph + + Black Death, the, I, 369; II, 173 + + Black Fast, II, 301 + + Black Lands, the, I, 196, 223; II, 120 + + Blackheath, the battle of, I, 45 + + Blackley, I, 56 + + Blackmoor, I, 41; II, 96 + + Blades, John of, II, 110 + + Blaunde, Christopher, I, 288 + + Blenkhow, Richard, I, 223 + + Blenkinsop, —, II, 159, 180 + + Blenkinsop, Christopher, I, 221 + + Bletsoe, I, 34 + + Blyth Priory, II, 39 + + Blythe, I, 234 + + Blythe Law, I, 233 + + Blytheman, William, I, 183, 184, 206, 207; II, 134–5, 138, 139, 257 + + Bockmore, II, 294, 304, 311 + + Boleyn, Anne, I, 1, 5, 7, 10, 16, 25, 26, 31, 56, 67, 69, 72, 76, 81, + 82, 108, 149, 271; II, 15, 181 + + Bolingbroke, I, 89, 91, 92, 96, 101 + + Bolton, I, 40, 201 + + Bolton Castle, II, 79, 102, 108, 214 + + Bolton Priory, I, 210 + + Bonaventure. _See_ Johnson, Thomas + + Bonner, Edmund, I, 367 + + Bontane, Constance, II, 324 + + Booth, Mr, I, 97 + + Borders, the, between England and Scotland + their characteristics, I, 29, 35, 89, 193; II, 269 + jurisdiction of the Council of the North on, II, 272 + exempted from the Statute of Handguns, I, 364 + fortresses, I, 190; II, 228, 235, 238, 248, 250 + the King’s plan for their government, II, 227–9, 234, 236, 237, 240, + 250, 270–1 + Council of the Marches, II, 228, 232–3, 237, 238, 261 + the East Marches, II, 227–9, 236, 238, 239, 248, 251, 261 + law of the Marches, II, 235 + the Middle Marches, II, 41, 228–9, 232, 234, 236, 238, 239, 251, + 261, 268 + March treason, II, 234, 276 + the West Marches, II, 224, 228, 229, 236, 239, 245, 248, 251, 263, + 268 + officers and pensioners, I, 18–9, 30–2, 198–9, 284, 285; II, 79, + 103, 227–8, 229, 230–1, 232, 233–4, 235–6, 238–9, 240, 248, + 260–1, 263–4, 268–9 + influence of the Percys on, I, 32; II, 227 + the Pilgrims ready to defend, I, 199, 221, 253, 304–5 + raids, I, 29, 31, 33, 190, 192–3; II, 228, 248, 261, 263 + expected war with Scotland. _See_ Scotland, expected war with + England + reference, I, 19, 45, 190, 272; II, 246, 252. + _See also_ Norfolk, the Duke of, and the Borders + + Borough, II, 66, 67, 72 + + Borough, Thomas, Lord, I, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 106, 108, + 110, 112, 132, 319; II, 193, 196 + + Borough-under-Stainmore, I, 220 + the vicar of. _See_ Thompson, Robert + + Borrodale, Gawen, II, 138 + + Boston, I, 87, 111, 121 + + Bowes, family of, I, 36 + + Bowes, Alice, wife of Robert, I, 36 + + Bowes, Elizabeth, wife of Richard, I, 36; II, 180 + + Bowes, George, I, 202 + + Bowes, Margaret, wife of Sir Ralph, I, 36 + + Bowes, Sir Ralph, I, 36 + + Bowes, Richard, I, 36, 39, 202, 345; II, 180 + + Bowes, Robert + King’s attorney, II, 119 + his character, I, 37; II, 239, 260 + the commons attack him, II, 61 + his company of Pilgrims, I, 202–5, 237, 239, 252, 255, 261, 262 + at the first conference at Doncaster, I, 259, 262, 263, 265 + and the second conference at Doncaster, II, 12, 21 + at the council at Pontefract, I, 345, 346 + at the council at York, I, 312, 313, 316, 318 + his influence in Durham, II, 239 + his mission to the King, I, 267, 270, 274, 278–80, 289, 290, 292, + 293, 296, 297, 298, 308, 311–3, 320, 326, 330, 331, 333, 339; + _II_, 1, 31, 119, 194 + on the Council of the North, I, 37; II, 271, 272, 274 + on the Duke of Norfolk’s council, II, 229 + pacifies the North Riding, II, 94 + his servant, I, 377 + and the spiritual articles, I, 342, 378 + and the suppression of the monasteries, II, 21 + his feud with Tunstall, II, 268 + reference, I, 36, 55, 231, 238; II, 95, 130, 135, 139 + + Bowgham, George, I, 90 + + Bowyer (Bowier), Richard, I, 174, 175, 176, 344, 346, 353, 378, 382; + II, 130, 219 + + Boynton, Matthew, II, 75, 76, 88, 98, 212 + + Brabson, —, I, 368 + + Brackenbury, Anthony, I, 253 + + Bradford, II, 28 + + Bradford, Brian, I, 310 + + Bradford, Edward, I, 200 + + Bradforde, —, monk of Sawley, II, 83, 266 + + Brancepeth, I, 204, 207; II, 66, 78 + + Brandling, Robert, mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I, 206, 207 + + Brandon Bridge, II, 175 + + —— Ferry, II, 175 + + Brandsburton, the bailiff of, II, 62 + + Brandsby, Dr John, I, 377, 378, 382, 383 + + Brantingham, I 154 + + Brasse, Henry, II, 134 + + Bray, Lord, II, 193 + + Brayton, the vicar of. _See_ Maunsell, Thomas + + Breamore Priory, I, 330 + + Brenan and Statham, ‘The History of the House of Howard’, i, 61 + + Breyar, William, I, 78, 145, 150, 207 + + Brian, Sir Francis, I, 55, 122, 123, 135, 136, 246, 289, 293, 305, + 319, 320, 358; II, 3, 6, 7, 8, 53, 256, 281, 282, 285 + + Bricket, —, II, 30 + + Bridewell, I, 303 + + Bridgewater, I, 87 + + Bridlington, I, 87, 281; II, 211, 255 + + Bridlington Priory, I, 233, 280; II, 69, 121, 138, 139, 212, 252 + + —— the shrine of St John, II, 139 + + Bridlington, the Prior of. _See_ Wood, William + + Brigg, Mabel, II, 301 + + Brigham, —, II, 133 + + Brighton, II, 167 + + Bristol, I, 65, 80 + Christchurch, II, 167 + the Grey Friars, II, 167 + the Friars Preachers, II, 167 + + Broadfield Moor, II, 116 + + Brocke, Edmund, I, 70 + + Broderton, Richard, II, 84 + + Brodly, Nicholas, I, 61 + + Bromley, II, 208 + + Bromsgrove, I, 328 + + Brougham Castle, II, 113 + + Broughton, I, 67; II, 44 + + Brown, —, I, 156, 345 + + Browne, Sir Anthony, I, 136, 247, 248, 289, 319, 327, 344, 377; II, 3, + 8, 10, 103, 229–34, 237 + + Browne, George, Bishop of Dublin, I, 98, 353 + + Browne, Humphry, II, 200 + + Browne, John, I, 95 + + Browne, Robert, I, 95, 126 + + Browne, Walter, curate of Kendal, II, 41 + + Bruchsal, I, 370 + + Brussels, I, 335; II, 224 + + Bucer (Bucerus), Martin, I, 346 + + Buckenham Priory, II, 173 + + Buckingham town, I, 246 + + Buckingham county, I, 69, 264; II, 165, 294 + + Buckingham, Henry Stafford, second Duke of, I, 15 + + Buckingham, Edward Stafford, third Duke of, I, 14, 15, 18, 37–8, 39, + 332; II, 79, 186 + + Bug, —, I, 109 + + Bulmer, family of, I, 37–8, 40, 287 + + Bulmer, Anne, wife of Sir John, I, 38–40 + + Bulmer, Anne, wife of Ralph, I, 38 + + Bulmer, Anne, wife of Sir Ralph, I, 39; II, 180 + + Bulmer, Elizabeth, wife of Sir William the younger, I, 39–40; II, 200, + 202 + + Bulmer, John of Pinchinthorpe, I, 39, 61 + + Bulmer, Sir John + his arrest II, 133, 163 + at the first conference at Doncaster, I, 265 + his connection with Bigod’s rising, II, 76 + his confession, II, 201–2 + his correspondence, II, 52, 96, 160, 180, 183, 200–1 + his early life, I, 37, 38, 39, 40 + evidence against, II, 200–1, 213 + his execution, II, 214–5 + his household goods, II, 252 + and Guisborough Priory, I, 317; II, 40, 57 + his imprisonment, II, 182–3, 200 + his suspicion of the King, II, 95–6, 158–9 + summoned to London, II, 158–9, 161–3, 164, 185 + his preparations for a new rising, II, 96–7, 159–62, 184–5, 201 + his trial, II, 135–6, 197–8, 200–2, 204 + reference, I, 237; II, 75, 88, 95 + + Bulmer, Margaret, wife of Sir John, I, 39, 61; II, 76, 97, 135, 158–9, + 161–3, 182, 198, 200–2, 204, 206, 215–6 + + Bulmer, Margery, I, 37 + + Bulmer, Ralph, I, 38, 345; II, 76, 95, 135, 158–60, 198, 200–2 + + Bulmer, Sir Ralph, I, 37, 38, 39, 205, 345, 346; II, 110, 180 + + Bulmer, Robert, II, 47 + + Bulmer, Sir William, the elder, I, 37–8 + + Bulmer, Sir William, the younger, I, 37–40, 237, 345; II, 95, 96, 97, + 163, 200, 202 + + Bungay, II, 176 + + Buntingford, II, 207 + + Burbeck, Thomas, I, 221 + + Burford (Brunfelde) Oak, I, 223, 224 + + Burgh, Leonard, I, 203 + + Burn, I, 248 + + Burnley, I, 219 + + Burnsall in Craven, II, 43 + + Burscough Priory, I, 316 + + Burton-upon-Stather, I, 142, 145 + + Burton-on-Trent, I, 282, 294, 299 + + Burwell, Richard, I, 131 + + Bushell, James, I, 217 + + Bushop, Richard, II, 176, 177 + + Butley, the Prior of, II, 166 + + Butts, Dr, II, 89 + + Byland Abbey, I, 233; II, 60, 97 + + + Cadiz, I, 19 + + Caistor, I, 96–9, 113, 116, 124, 135, 347; II, 149, 154 + + Caistor Hill, I, 96, 97 + + Calais, I, 72, 335; II, 19, 245, 282, 284, 299 + + Caldbeck, I, 222 + + Calkhill, I, 152; II, 61 + + Cambrai, II, 281, 282, 285 + + Cambridge, I, 63, 241, 242, 244–5, 246, 247, 249, 260, 266 + All Hallows, II, 168 + university, II, 168 + + Cambridge county, II, 164 + + Canell, Robert, II, 165 + + Cante, Andrew, II, 63, 110 + + Canterbury, I, 64, 65, 326; II, 219 + + Canterbury, the Archbishop of general reference, I, 348; II, 57 + _See_ Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury + + Captain Cobbler (Nicholas Melton), I, 92–96, 116, 133, 138, 140; II, + 149, 150, 155 + + Captain Poverty, I, 199, 220, 221, 226; II, 113 + + Carleton, I, 211 + + Carew, Elizabeth, wife of Sir Nicholas, II, 321 + + Carew, Sir Nicholas, II, 319–21, 324 + + Carlisle, I, 27, 35, 190, 208, 211, 223, 224, 225, 239, 305, 312, 382; + II, 6, 8, 9, 28, 42, 44, 111, 113–20, 122, 123, 126, 138, 142, 219, + 226, 245, 246, 248, 250, 263, 276 + the Captain of. _See_ Cumberland, the Earl of, and Wentworth, Sir + Thomas + the Bishop of. _See_ Kite, John + Castle, I, 223; II, 42, 110, 114, 116, 117, 138, 246, 249 + the mayor of, I, 224; II, 42 + Priory, I, 222; II, 263 + + Carlisle Herald, I, 270 + + Carlton, I, 124 + + Carnaby, family of, I, 195, 199, 285, 299; II, 41, 231–2, 238 + + Carnaby, Sir Reynold, I, 31–3, 193–4, 195, 199, 200; II, 9, 124, 203, + 231–2, 239, 261, 263, 269, 275 + + Carnaby, Thomas, I, 197; II, 263 + + Carnaby, William, I, 194–7 + + Carpyssacke, —, II, 171 + + Carr, family of, II, 228, 231 + + Carr, Ralph, I, 59 + + Carr, Mrs, wife of Ralph, I, 59–60 + + Carre, Robert, I, 113, 127, 131–2; II 153 + + Carter, Thomas, abbot of Holm Cultram, I, 222–5, 312; II, 116, 122–3, + 138 + + Carthusians + of London, I, 23, 62, 63, 75, 80, 189, 271; II, 137, 193 + of Hull, I, 62, 163, 164; II, 137 + + Cartlogan Thorns, I, 222 + + Cartmell Priory, II, 20, 39, 142, 144 + + —— the Prior of, I, 218; II, 21, 148 + + Castelforth, Robert, II, 39 + + Castillon, Louis de Perreau, Sieur de, French ambassador, II, 241, + 277, 310, 319 + + Catherell, —, II, 61 + + Catherick, —, I, 211 + + Catton, II, 273 + + Cavendish, John, I, 299 + + Cawood, I, 143, 150, 151, 170, 380 + + Cawood, Gervase, I, 48, 148, 181 + + Caxton, II, 168 + + Cervington, —, II, 199 + + Chalcedon, the Bishop of. _See_ Mackerell, Matthew, abbot of Barlings + + Chaloner (Challoner), Robert, I, 238, 262, 312, 345, 346, 353, 357, + 383; II, 189, 258, 260, 271, 272 + + Chamber, Dr, I, 244 + + Chamley. _See_ Cholmley + + Chancellor of the Augmentations. _See_ Riche, Richard + + Chancery, I, 45, 273, 360, 366–7; II, 29–30, 68, 192 + + Chapuys, Eustace, Imperial ambassador in England, I, 8, 22–3, 24–8, + 55, 117, 144, 310, 325, 330–3, 335–6, 338; II, 25, 191, 205, 223–4, + 305, 313, 319–21, 325–6 + + Chapuys, Eustace, nephew of the Imperial ambassador, I, 133, 336 + + Charles I of England, II, 55, 333, 334 + + Charles V, the Emperor, I, 2, 11, 16, 17, 18, 24, 83, 87, 117, 134, + 287, 310, 325, 333–4, 336, 340, 356–7; II, 25, 176, 243, 245, 247, + 281, 282, 298–9, 308, 320, 326, 331 + + Charleton, family of, II, 228, 275 + + Charleton, Cuthbert, I, 195; II, 41, 230–3, 261–3, 275 + + Charleton, Edward, I, 195; II, 41, 230–3, 261, 262, 263, 275 + + Charleton, Gerrard, of Wark, II, 238 + + Charleton, Gerry, of the Bourne, II, 238, 261 + + Charleton, Gilbert, II, 238 + + Charleton, John, II, 234, 246, 261 + + Charleton, Rinian, II, 234, 238, 246, 261 + + Charleton, Thomas, II, 238 + + Cheshire, I, 213, 215, 219, 282, 294, 314, 382; II, 7, 52, 141 + + Chester Castle, I, 214 + + Chester Herald, I, 270 + + Chester-le-Street, II, 244 + + Cheyne, Margaret. _See_ Bulmer, Margaret + + Cheyne, William, I, 39 + + Chichester, I, 70; II, 308, 326 + + Chichester, the Bishop of. _See_ Sampson, Richard + + Chichester Cathedral, the Chancellor of. _See_ Croftes, George + + Chideock, I, 80 + + Chillingham Castle, I, 199–201, 225, 239 + + Chipchase, I, 195–7; II, 41, 230, 233, 261–3 + + Cholmley, —, I, 231 + + Cholmley (Chamley), Sir Roger, II, 136, 184 + + Chorley, I, 319 + + Church of Rome, I, 6, 9, 15, 16, 25, 28, 44, 48, 55, 60, 64, 70, 81, + 82, 114, 178, 218, 225–6, 229, 263, 294, 337, 341–3, 347–8, 352–3, + 355, 360, 370, 383–7; II, 57, 179, 287, 330–3 + + Cifuentes, Fernando de Silva, Count of, Imperial ambassador at Rome, + I, 335, 338 + + Civil Code of Justinian. _See_ Common Law _v._ Civil Law + + Civil War in England, the Great, I, 388; II, 271, 333–4 + + Clapham, the vicar of, I, 217 + + Clare, Stephen, II, 63 + + Clarence, the Duke of, I, 14; II, 324 + + Clarke, Sir John, I, 328–9 + + Cleeve Abbey, II, 172 + + Clement VII, Pope, I, 20–1 + + Clementhorpe nunnery, I, 244 + + Cleobury Mortimer (Cleeland), II, 166 + + Clergy of England + Act regulating the, I, 5 + commission to inquire into their condition, I, 91, 96 + the council of divines, II, 166 + and the Cumberland rebels, I, 225, 370, 372 + and the Act of First Fruits, I, 351 + and Henry VIII, I, 5–10, 67–9, 244, 326, 383, 385; II, 164–5 + their influence, I, 56–8 + and the New Learning, I, 66 + and the Statute of Praemunire, I, 6, 385 + their allegiance to the Pope, I, 342–3 + punishment of, without degradation, I, 9, 355, 384 + their part in the rebellion, I, 58, 79, 96, 134, 203, 217, 221, 261, + 342, 343, 386; II, 28, 40–41, 74, 159, 330–31 + submission of the, I, 6 + taxation of the, I, 351–2, 371–2, 384 + reference II, 68 + + Cleveland, I, 202, 262; II, 67, 76, 80, 94–7, 105–6 + + Cliff, Dr William, I, 382–4, 386 + + Clifford, family of, I, 34–5, 224; II, 42, 115, 252 + + Clifford, Anne, wife of Henry, Lord, I, 34 + + Clifford, Lady Eleanor, I, 35, 210 + + Clifford, Henry, Lord, the ‘Shepherd Lord’, I, 34, 49 + + Clifford, Henry, Lord, son and heir of the first Earl of Cumberland, + I, 35, 208, 223–4; II, 6, 8, 9, 42, 43 + + Clifford, John, Lord, I, 49 + + Clifford, Sir Thomas, I, 35, 200–1, 223; II, 9, 104, 228, 230, 232, + 248, 254, 255, 261, 266 + + Clifford, Thomas, I, 35; II, 111–3, 116, 117, 120, 138 + + Clifton, —, I, 155 + + Clifton, Walter, I, 155 + + Clinton, Lord, I, 96, 118, 128, 132; II, 193 + + Clitheroe, Hugh, I, 154 + + Clyfton, Gervis, I, 306 + + Cobham, Lord, II, 193 + + Cockerell, James, quondam prior of Guisborough, II, 40, 56–9, 135, + 183, 211, 214 + + Cockermouth, I, 223; II, 28, 44, 105, 112, 119, 120 + + Coinage, the, I, 2 + + Coke, Henry, I, 273 + + Cokke, John, II, 175 + + Colchester, I, 241 + + —— St John’s Abbey, II, 24 + + Colins, Lancelot, treasurer of York Minster, I, 178, 183–4, 232 + + Collingwood, Robert, I, 194, 198, 199; II, 232 + + Collins, John, II, 294–5, 305–6, 310, 312, 315 + + Collins, William, I, 213, 216, 345; II, 20, 21, 30, 31, 106, 113, 114, + 144, 148, 219, 220 + + Colne, I, 219 + + Colsell, John, I, 65 + + Colwick, I, 109, 113 + + Commission of the Peace, II, 245 + + Commission, the King’s. _See_ Letters Royal + + Common Law _v._ Civil Law, I, 366–8; II, 182 + + Comperta, the, I, 350 + + Compiègne, II, 242 + + Confessa Germaniae (the Augsburg Confession), I, 346 + + Conishead Priory, I, 213; II, 39 + + —— the prior of, II, 21 + + Conisholm, the parson of, I, 91 + + Constable, family of, I, 44, 47, 48; II, 53, 206 + + Constable, Christopher, I, 47 + + Constable, Eleanor, I, 45 + + Constable, Elizabeth, wife of Marmaduke, I, 46 + + Constable, James, of the Cliff, I, 157 + + Constable, Jane, wife of Sir Robert, I, 45 + + Constable, John, brother of Sir Robert, I, 45 + + Constable, Sir John of Holderness, I, 46–7, 155, 158, 164, 345; II, 81 + + Constable, Joyse, wife of Sir Marmaduke the little, I, 45 + + Constable, Leonard, I, 58 + + Constable, Sir Marmaduke the little, I, 45, 46 + + Constable, Sir Marmaduke, brother of Sir Robert, I, 45–6, 109, 110, + 116, 278, 283, 292; II, 48, 50, 53, 102, 104, 133, 216, 229, 260, + 272 + + —— his wife, II, 216 + + Constable, Marmaduke, son of Sir William, I, 163 + + Constable, Marmaduke, eldest son of Sir Robert, I, 46; II, 72, 103, + 206 + + Constable, Ralph, I, 155 + + Constable, Sir Robert + with the royal army at Nottingham, I, 170; II, 205 + his arrest, II, 125, 133, 204 + his conduct during Bigod’s rising, II, 72–3, 75, 90–2, 98, 102, 119, + 131, 205–6 + warned by Bulmer, II, 160 + his classical allusion, II, 46 + his early life and character, I, 45–6, 48, 61 + evidence against, II, 130–1, 140, 205–6, 209 + his examination, II, 134, 204, 207 + his execution, II, 194, 220–1, 223 + his family, I, 40, 45; II, 333 + his feuds, I, 46–8; II, 91 + his friendship with Darcy, I, 19, 21, 45–6; II, 189, 205, 220 + and the first conference at Doncaster, I, 259, 264–5, 269 + his household goods, II, 252 + his name used by Hallam, II, 48 + governor of Hull, I, 286, 288, 293, 336 + his imprisonment, II, 207, 216, 220 + and Archbishop Lee, I, 342, 380 + in command of the middle ward, I, 252, 256, 261–2 + his motto, I, 48; II, 221 + his papers, II, 205 + his petitions, II, 206–7 + becomes a leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 227 + at Pontefract, I, 171, 186, 228, 233, 238; II, 205 + at the council at Pontefract, I, 345, 347, 353 + steward of Howden, II, 40 + summoned to London, II, 50, 52, 158 + and the suppression of the monasteries, II, 20 + at Templehurst, I, 308 + his trial, II, 135, 136, 140, 198, 205, 206, 211 + at the council at York, I, 312–4, 316; II, 9 + reference, I, 27, 116, 280, 310–1, 323, 325, 351; II, 96, 101, 103, + 126 + + Constable, Sir Robert (grandfather of above), I, 40 + + Constable, Thomas, I, 47 + + Constable, Thomas, of Settrington, I, 40 + + Constable, Sir William, brother of Sir Robert, I, 45, 46, 155, 163, + 239, 286, 345, 346; II, 47, 81 + + Constable, Sir William, the regicide, II, 333 + + Constable, William, I, 325 + + Constable, William, of Settrington, I, 40 + + Convocation + general reference, I, 9, 360, 371, 383, 385; II, 37, 49, 72, 187, + 198, 209 + the Northern, I, 6, 7, 9, 351, 384, 388 + the Southern, I, 6–7, 9, 10, 353 + + Conyers of Hornby, family of, I, 36, 42 + + Conyers, Sir George, I, 60, 157; II, 87 + + Conyers, Gregory, I, 42–3; II, 77, 87–8, 133, 136, 158, 159, 163, 164, + 199 + + Conyers, James, I, 43 + + Conyers, Sir John, I, 37 + + Conyers, John, I, 42 + + Conyers, Sir Richard, I, 36 + + Conyers, William, Lord, I, 38, 41, 345; II, 13, 34, 109, 184 + + Conyers, Sir William, I, 37 + + Conyers, William, I, 211 + + Cook, Lawrence, Prior of the White Friars of Doncaster, I, 251; II, + 266 + + Cooper, William, II, 63 + + Copindale, Edmund, I, 157, 286 + + Copledike, Sir John, I, 101, 102 + + Corbridge, I, 33; II, 235 + + Coren, Richard, II, 223–4 + + Cornage. _See_ Neat geld + + Corney, George, I, 221 + + Cornwall, I, 88; II, 170, 171, 180, 181 + + Corthrop, Thomas, I, 68 + + Cottam, Bartholomew, II, 159, 160, 161 + + Cottingham, I, 151, 153, 159, 160, 161; II, 75 + + Cotton, Richard, I, 248 + + Council, the King’s + its composition I, 136, 229, 263, 276, 290, 331, 357; II, 1, 36 + examinations before, I, 26, 118, 244 + Exeter and Fitzwilliam excluded from, I, 25–6 + and Lord Delaware, II, 313 + its deliberations, II, 245, 248, 263, 291, 305, 325 + and the King’s reply to the Pilgrims, I, 278; II, 24, 35 + and Mary’s marriage, I, 325; II, 245 + correspondence with Norfolk, I, 121, 244–5, 247, 268, 295; II, 6, 9, + 11, 103, 105, 118, 125, 132, 150, 229, 230, 235–6, 241 + negotiations with Pole, II, 279–80 + its offshoots, II, 229, 270–2 + proposals for the settlement of the North, II, 26–7, 33, 52–3 + reference, I, 5, 13, 20, 86, 99, 131, 143, 180, 181, 186, 274, 285, + 290, 313, 329; II, 79, 104, 126, 234, 260, 293, 307, 308, 318 + + Council of the North + established, II, chap. xxi, pp. 226 _et seq._, 260, 267–8, 270–3, + 329 + its first meeting, II, 272–3 + its members and officers, II, 260, 272–3 + its origin, I, 30–1 + and the Border pledges, II, 275 + its powers, II, 272–3 + president of. _See_ Tunstall, Bishop + and seditious prophecies, I, 82–4 + reference, II, 185, 200, 228, 234, 252 + + Court of Arches, I, 383 + + Courtenay, Edward, II, 310, 319, 323, 325, 326, 328 + + Coventry, I, 70 + + Coventry, the Bishop of. _See_ Lee, Roland + + Coverham Abbey, I, 201; II, 266 + + Cow Cross, London, II, 59 + + Cowdray, II, 308, 317, 323, 324 + + Cowper, James, I, 217 + + Cox, J. C., ‘William Stapleton and the Pilgrimage of Grace’, I, 62 + + Crake, Robert, I, 143, 150; II, 49 + + Crane, James, II, 254–6 + + Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, I, 8, 14, 98, 111, 114, + 133, 236, 353–4, 356; II, 165, 167 + + Craven, I, 73, 150, 207–8, 237, 316; II, 43 + + Crawford, the Earl of, I, 272 + + Cresswell, Katherine, II, 195 + + Cresswell, Percival, I, 289–94, 326; II, 195 + + Cressy, Simon, II, 177 + + Crockey, William, II, 63–4, 82 + + Croftes, George, Chancellor of Chichester Cathedral, II, 295, 310, + 312, 315, 319 + + Croftormount, I, 371 + + Cromwell, Richard, I, 108, 117, 119, 120, 122–3, 128, 135, 164–6, 293, + 319, 377; II, 8, 11, 12, 14, 46, 150, 255, 291, 303 + + Cromwell, Thomas, Lord Privy Seal, afterwards Earl of Essex + his arrest, II, 222, 332 + and Robert Aske, I, 60, 291; II, 207, 224–5 + and Sir Francis Bigod, I, 41, 43–4 + his character, I, 4; II, 330 + and Darcy, I, 20, 266, 304, 305; II, 186–9, 192–3 + the rebels demand his head. _See_ Demands of the rebels + and Lady Margaret Douglas, I, 317–8; II, 58 + his letter to young Sir Ralph Evers, I, 313–4, 317 + examinations before, I, 73; II, 199 + and the Marquis of Exeter, II, 290–1, 303, 313, 319, 320 + his extortions, I, 352, 357; II, 185 + Knight of the Garter, II, 195, 222 + and the King, I, 244, 326–7, 374; II, 4, 36 + supposed to be the King’s heir, I, 317–8, 361, 363; II, 58 + scape-goat for the King, I, 21, 189, 358; II, 15, 36, 60 + and the Lincs. Rebellion, I, 117 + and Mary, I, 26, 317 + his commission for the Visitation of the Monasteries. _See_ + Visitation of the Monasteries + and the monasteries, I, 4, 43, 75, 208–9, 213–4, 285; II, 39, 40, + 56, 58, 82, 124, 139, 201 + his correspondence with the Duke of Norfolk, I, 5, 241–2, 244–5, + 272; II, 99, 102, 105, 109, 110–2, 118, 121, 123, 124, 126, + 130–1, 133, 135, 137, 139, 185–6, 210, 218, 221, 224, 239–40, + 252–3, 258–9, 262, 264–5, 266, 268–9 + and the Earl of Northumberland, I, 31–2 + and Parliament, I, 3, 4; II, 55 + petitions to + from Robert Aske, II, 222 + from Richard Bowyer, II, 219 + from Sir Robert Constable, II, 206–7 + from Sir Arthur Darcy, I, 74 + from young Sir Ralph Evers, II, 88 + from Archbishop Lee, I, 193 + from John Madowell, II, 167 + from Sir Thomas Percy, I, 33 + from Edward Stanley, I, 53 + from Sir Richard Tempest, I, 56; II, 218 + from Robert Thompson, II, 219 + his account of the Pilgrimage, II, 25, 217 + and Sir Geoffrey Pole, II, 304 + and Reginald Pole, II, 285, 288, 295, 305–6, 318 + his policy, I, 4, 10, 57, 63–4, 378 + and prisoners, II, 153, 220, 245, 311 + _see also above_, petitions to + prophecies about. _See_ Prophecies + and the rebels, I, 303, 314, 358; II, 37, 118, 127, 224 + and the reformers, I, 66, 370 + reports of his agents, I, 64–7, 71, 87, 109, 111–2, 118, 123, 128, + 165, 190, 214, 220, 248, 329, 335; II, 25, 40–1, 50, 92–5, 122, + 129, 145–6, 148, 150, 165, 168, 170–2, 177, 181, 190–1, 208, 215, + 224, 248, 254–5, 265, 273, 279, 280, 283, 287, 302, 316, 317 + rhymes against. _See_ Sedition, rhymes + his servants, I, 248, 352, 368 + his correspondence with Shrewsbury, I, 109, 116, 294 + his correspondence with the Earl of Sussex, II, 142, 144, 147 + his unpopularity, I, 1, 59–60, 69, 79, 103, 111, 120, 139, 183, 207, + 214, 235, 236, 263, 266, 271, 281, 285, 290, 292, 307, 315, 323, + 326–7, 357, 368, 377; II, 4, 14, 37, 51, 57, 79, 80, 110, 160, + 164, 183, 254, 293–4, 300 + reference, I, 13, 24, 54, 66, 72, 86, 95, 108, 122, 126, 131, 140, + 173, 194, 206, 215, 234, 267, 278, 284, 336, 343, 353, 381; II, + 79, 137, 257, 270, 286, 321, 324 + + Crossthwaite, I, 307 + + Crow, John, I, 153 + + Crowle, the vicar of, I, 70, 79 + + Crowley, Richard, I, 67 + + Crummock Water, I, 307 + + Cumberland county + arrest of Sir Francis Bigod in, II, 110 + character of the rising in, I, 192, 225, 226, 370 + commons and the clergy, I, 222, 224, 354; II, 120 + the commons’ rising, II, 114–8, 122, 208. _See also_ Westmorland + county, the commons’ rising + disturbances there after the rebellion, II, 105, 112 + the rebels’ grievances, I, 217, 220, 226, 369; II, 112, 119–20 + parliamentary representation of, I, 388 + the Pilgrimage in, I, 221–6 + the second appointment at Doncaster proclaimed in, II, 43 + the pardon proclaimed in, II, 28 + riots there, I, 78, 220; II, 42, 56 + the sheriff of. _See_ Curwen, Sir Thomas + escapes taxation, I, 192, 372 + the truce, I, 224, 279, 283, 292, 298, 299, 304, 331 + reference, I, 29, 50, 70, 196, 305, 318, 364; II, 6, 134, 234, 268, + 272 + + Cumberland, Henry Clifford, first Earl of + captain of Carlisle, I, 35; II, 245–6, 248–9 + his character, I, 34 + and the commons’ rising, II, 122, 123 + his feud with the Dacres, I, 35; II, 42, 115, 229, 230, 236, 252–3 + at Darcy’s trial, II, 193 + his family, I, 49, 51, 150, 200, 210, 223 + Knight of the Garter, II, 229 + and the King, I, 35; II, 43–4, 183, 246 + ordered to dissolve Hexham Priory, I, 194–5, 208 + his influence, I, 29 + and the Duke of Norfolk, II, 102, 240 + his feud with John Norton, I, 52, 209; II, 43 + and the outbreak of the Pilgrimage, I, 201, 207–10 + his proceedings after the second appointment at Doncaster, II, 43–4 + his defence of Skipton Castle, I, 208–11, 312, 316; II, 6 + his correspondence with Suffolk, I, 301, 312 + his unpopularity, I, 35, 52–3, 73, 192, 305; II, 103, 252–3, 264 + Warden of the West Marches, I, 35; II, 123, 228–9, 251 + sheriff of Westmorland, II, 123 + reference, I, 50, 53–4, 185, 238, 313; II, 111, 160, 165 + + Cumberland, Margaret, Countess of, I, 34, 51, 54 + + Curtis, Anthony, I, 79–80, 152–3, 155, 156, 162, 288–9; II, 152 + + Curtis, Leonard, I, 105 + + Curwen, Sir Thomas, I, 74; II, 110, 112, 114, 120, 122 + + Cuthbert, St, I, 36, 238 + his banner. _See_ Banner, of St Cuthbert + + Cuthbert, a priest, II, 243–4 + + Cutler, George, I, 110, 112–3, 131; II, 148, 149, 196 + + + Dachant, Roger, I, 207 + + Dacre, family of, I, 35, 84; II, 42–3, 115, 252 + + Dacre, Sir Christopher, I, 224; II, 115–8, 120–1, 138 + + Dacre, Richard, I, 299; II, 42 + + Dacre, William, Lord (Lord Dacre of the North), I, 22, 30, 35, 224, + 250, 299; II, 42, 115, 186, 229–30, 235–6, 240, 252, 264 + + Dacre, Thomas Fiennes, Lord (Dacre of the South) II, 193 + + Dakyn, John, vicar-general of the diocese of York, I, 201–3, 206, 211, + 283, 377–8, 382–4, 386, 388; II, 20–1, 40, 44, 130, 148 + + Dakyns (Cromwell’s servant), I, 368 + + Dalison, Mr, I, 97 + + Dalston, I, 224 + + Dalston, Thomas, I, 223 + + Dalton, the vicar of, II, 146 + + —— the bailiff of, II, 145 + + Dalyvell, Robert, II, 244–5 + + Danby, Sir Christopher, I, 201–3, 205, 211, 212, 228, 231, 262, 269, + 345; II, 92, 108, 136 + + Dantzig, I, 42 + + Darcy, Sir Arthur, I, 18, 74, 118–9, 121, 143, 171–2, 184, 259, 269, + 293, 297; II, 83, 86, 88, 127–9, 139, 142–3, 145, 195 + + Darcy, Dorothy, wife of Sir George, II, 51 + + Darcy, Dousabella, first wife of Lord Darcy, I, 18, 27 + + Darcy, Edith, second wife of Lord Darcy, I, 18, 27 + + Darcy, Euphemia, mother of Lord Darcy, I, 18 + + Darcy, Sir George, I, 18, 142, 168, 170, 186, 188–9, 269, 294, 297–8, + 345; II, 33, 51, 92–3, 95, 109, 189, 195, 218 + + Darcy, Richard, I, 18 + + Darcy, Thomas, Lord + and the divorce of Katherine of Arragon, I, 20 + his arrest, II, 133, 186, 195, 204 + and Robert Aske. _See_ Aske, Robert, and Lord Darcy + and the plan to kidnap Aske, I, 267, 290–6, 304 + his attempts to keep order after the rebellion, II, 38, 41, 44, 50, + 51–2, 72–3, 109, 187–8 + and the Badge of the Five Wounds, I, 239; II, 190 + his services on the Borders, I, 18–19, 30 + and the mission of Bowes and Ellerker, I, 292, 308 + warned by Bulmer, II, 160, 188–9 + his correspondence with Chapuys, I, 22–3, 27, 310; II, 191, 223 + his character and opinions, I, 20, 24, 304, 353; II, 14, 187, 191, + 194, 197 + a member of the King’s Council, I, 276; II, 1 + and Thomas Cromwell. _See_ Cromwell, Thomas, and Lord Darcy + and the first appointment at Doncaster, I, 253–4, 258–9, 264–6, 269, + 283, 302 + and the second appointment at Doncaster, I, 309, 314; II, 2, 13, 18 + his message to the Emperor. _See_ Waldby, Marmaduke + evidence against, I, 190; II, 92–3, 95, 119, 130, 147–8, 187–92, + 196, 206, 208, 209, 225 + his examination, I, 267; II, 134, 186–7, 207 + his execution, I, 380; II, 193–5, 217 + his expedition to Spain, I, 19, 45, 239 + his family, I, 18, 46 + in France, I, 19 + correspondence with Sir Brian Hastings, I, 169, 308, 321, 344 + his household goods, II, 252 + and the House of Lords, I, 20, 360–1 + and Lord Hussey, I, 21–2, 290–2 + his imprisonment, II, 194–5, 216 + and the King, I, 20, 118, 121–2, 143–4, 169, 171, 173–4, 184–5, + 189–90, 207, 208, 212, 243–4, 276, 292, 301–5; II, 50–2, 89, + 92–3, 101, 109, 129, 190, 194–5 + and Levening’s case, II, 92, 131, 188 + his alleged letter to Lincs., II, 84 + and the Lincs. prisoners, II, 17, 189 + and the Lincs. rebellion, I, 99, 172; II, 191 + and the Duke of Norfolk, I, 267, 269, 290–2, 296, 297, 302, 306, + 309, 311, 321; II, 41, 102, 127, 128, 186, 188–9, 194 + his return to the North in 1536, I, 24 + his papers, II, 186–90, 192, 194, 201, 205 + his pardon, I, 305; II, 89, 190, 195, 217 + becomes a leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 227–8, 230, 233, + 238–9 + his company of Pilgrims, I, 239, 261–2 + and the council at Pontefract, I, 315, 344–6 + his responsibility for Pontefract Castle, I, 190; II, 92–3, 109, + 127–9, 189 + his surrender of Pontefract Castle, I, 188–90; II, 92, 94, 190, 205 + his position at the beginning of the rebellion, I, 144, 168–71, + 180–1, 185, 188 + reports of his agents, I, 169–70, 173, 213–4, 216, 233, 269 + his servants, I, 156, 180 + and the Earl of Shrewsbury, I, 130, 169, 172–4, 185, 188, 245, + 252–3, 256–7, 266, 270, 297–8, 302, 310, 316, 344, 345; II, 6, + 34, 80, 92, 188–9, 193 + his interview with Somerset Herald, I, 299–306, 331–2 + his stewards. _See_ Strangeways, Thomas, and Grice, Thomas + summoned to London, II, 50–2, 127, 129, 158 + accuses the Earl of Surrey, I, 267 + suspected, I, 20, 22–3, 144, 190, 244, 250 + and Sir Richard Tempest, I, 172; II, 218 + his trial, II, 135–6, 140, 185–7, 193, 195–6, 314 + his anxiety during the truce, I, 296–8 + letter to, from the commons of Westmorland, I, 299 + and Cardinal Wolsey, I, 19–20; II, 192 + absent from the council at York, I, 311, 314–6 + reference, I, 32, 40, 50, 74, 203, 215, 226, 254, 256, 280, 288, + 293, 330, 351; II, 23, 52, 105, 126, 292 + + Darcy, Sir William, I, 18 + + Darcy, William, I, 18 + + Darlington, I, 202; II, 94–5 + + Darrell, Elizabeth, II, 293–4 + + Dartnell, Jacques, I, 313 + + Davy, —, II, 167–8 + + Dawnye, Sir John, I, 186, 238, 345 + + Delariver, —, I, 345 + + Delariver, Robert, I, 253 + + Delariver (Delaryver), Thomas, I, 74; II, 132–3, 136 + + Delaware, Thomas West, Lord, II, 186, 193, 217, 295, 306, 308, 312–3, + 319 + + Demands of the rebels + the articles of St Thomas, I, 64 + of Cornwall, II, 171 + of Durham, I, 197 + of Lancashire, I, 216 + of Lincolnshire + general, I, 109, 156 + at Boston, I, 111 + at Caistor, I, 98 + the Horncastle articles, I, 102–4, 111, 124 + the first petition to the King, I, 98–9, 107, 109, 118 + the second petition to the King, I, 114–5, 123, 136–7, 142 + as reported in London, I, 134 + sent to Yorkshire, I, 78, 115, 152 + their influence in Yorkshire, I, 153, 156, 174, 176, 352–3, 364 + in Northumberland, I, 199 + of Yorkshire + Aske’s speech upon, at Pontefract, I, 186–7 + distributed during the truce, I, 298 + the terms of the second appointment at Doncaster, II, 15–24, 27 + the first Yorkshire articles, I, 176–8, 180–1, 191 + the five articles, I, 229, 263–5, 267, 271, 275, 291, 315, 328, + 331–3; II, 1, 29, 35, 45, 51, 170, 174, 279 + the articles drawn up at Hunsley, I, 166–7 + a free pardon and a free parliament, I, 293; II, 6–7, 8, 13–18. + _See also_ Pardon _and_ Parliament + proposal to print the five articles, I, 252 + the twenty-four articles of Pontefract, I, 191, 264, 315, 332, + 344, 346–374, 384, 387; II, 1, 2, 12, 13–15, 35, 59, 130, 270–1 + the Richmondshire articles, II, 80, 97 + the restoration of the monasteries, II, 14–6, 18–26, 38, 45, 86, + 100, 111, 141 + the spiritual articles, I, 315, 318, 342–3, 353, 377, 383–8; II, + 13, 14, 57, 129–31, 166. + _See also_ Aske, Robert, his questions for the clergy + reference, I, 253, 258, 295; II, 100, 105. + _See also_ Proclamations, Rebel + + Denmark, I, 334 + + Dent, I, 143, 207, 216–8, 298, 316, 369 + the bailiff of, II, 144 + + Derby county, I, 113, 282, 314 + + Derby, Edward Stanley, third Earl of, I, 169–70, 210, 214–20, 227–8, + 269–70, 282, 287, 294–6, 298, 306, 316, 376; II, 6, 7, 43, 52, 119, + 141–4, 146, 176, 204 + + Derby town, I, 294, 296, 311, 319 + the bridge, I, 282 + + Derwent, the river, Cumb., II, 112 + + Derwent, the river, Yorks., I, 49, 144, 174 + + Devon county, I, 78, 88; II, 171 + + Dewsbury, I, 288 + + Diamond, —, I, 344 + + Dickering wapentake, II, 68–9 + + Dickson, Isaac, I, 307 + + Dighton Mr, I, 101, 124 + + Dilston, I, 193 + + Dingley, Sir Thomas, II, 324 + + Disney, —, I, 114 + + Dispensations from the Pope, Act declaring them void, I, 8, 385 + + Dissolution of the monasteries. _See_ Suppression of the monasteries + + Dix, John, II, 177 + + Dobsone, John, I, 82–4; II, 301 + + Dockwray, Thomas, I, 216 + + Dod, family of, II, 228 + + Dod, Archie, II, 238 + + Dod, John, II, 234, 246, 261 + + Dod, Henry, II, 238 + + Don, the river, I, 91, 149, 227, 238, 239, 249, 255–7, 260, 282, 300, + 344; II, 4, 5, 7, 8, 23, 217 + + Doncaster, I, 169, 180, 184–5, 205, 227, 234–5, 238–9, 245–6, 249–52, + 255–7, 259–60, 262, 266–7, 270, 283, 290, 293–5, 297, 305–6, 308–9, + 313, 319–21, 323, 327, 346, 377, 388; II, 2, 4, 10–13, 15–17, 19, + 20, 22, 34, 52, 93–5, 97, 99, 101–6, 108–9, 166, 194, 198, 223, + 229, 252 + bridge, I, 235, 265, 268, 327, 344 + the first appointment at, I, chap. xi, pp. 241–272. + _See also_ Truce of Doncaster + the second appointment at. _See_ Pilgrimage of Grace, the second + appointment at Doncaster + the Grey Friars’ house, II, 13, 16 + the White Friars’ house, II, 13, 266 + the Prior of the White Friars of. _See_ Cook, Lawrence + + Donne, Thomas, I, 115, 152–3, 155–7 + + Donnyngton, John, II, 132 + + Doomright, John, II, 243 + + Dorset county, I, 80, 326 + + Dorset, Henry Grey, Marquis of, II, 193 + + Douglas, Lady Margaret, I, 317–8, 363; II, 58 + + Dover, I, 134 + + Downes, Dr Geoffrey, chancellor of York, I, 382 + + Drewy, John, II, 167–8 + + Driffield, I, 47, 157 + + Duckett, —, I, 345 + + Dudley, —, I, 221 + + Dudley, Edmund, I, 21 + + Duke, Thomas, I, 74, 86 + + Dunbar, II, 86 + Castle, II, 266–7 + + Dunholm Heath (Lings), I, 106, 110 + + Duns Scotus, I, 65 + + Durham, the Bishop’s Chancery, I, 205 + + Durham Cathedral, I, 205 + + Durham city, I, 205, 207, 239, 273; II, 28, 30, 44, 61, 66, 78–9, + 83–5, 95, 122, 125–6, 133–4, 170 + the mint, I, 288 + + Durham county + arrests there, II, 119 + its liberties, I, 8, 30, 35–6, 144, 355; II, 125, 272 + pardon proclaimed in, II, 28, 30 + not represented in parliament, I, 355, 388 + Pilgrims from, I, 237–8, 251–2, 256, 262 + the rebellion in, I, 173, 192, 197, 199, 201, 205, 207 + sheriff of. _See_ Hilton, Sir Thomas + escapes taxation, I, 192 + tenure in, I, 369 + unrest there during the truce, I, 304 + unrest there after the rebellion, II, 30, 44, 61–2, 66–7, 78–80, + 94–6, 213, 300 + reference, I, 29, 182, 210, 227, 239, 349, 364; II, 234, 272–3 + + Durham Priory, I, 205, 238; II, 126 + + Dymmoke, family of, I, 130; II, 148 + + Dymmoke, Arthur, I, 124 + + Dymmoke, Sir Edward, sheriff of Lincolnshire, I, 101–2, 106, 111, 124, + 127; II, 149 + + Dymmoke, Sir Robert, I, 101 + + Dymmoke, Thomas, I, 124 + + + Eamont Bridge, I, 221 + + Easington, Yorks., II, 158 + the parson of. _See_ Watts, John + + East Anglia, II, 173, 177 + + Eastbourne, the vicar of, I, 69 + + Easterford, I, 120 + + East Meon, the vicar of. _See_ Heliar, John + + Ebberstone, II, 87 + + Eden, the river, I, 221–2 + + Edenhall, the vicar of, I, 222 + + Edinburgh, II, 244, 246, 249, 254 + + Edmund, a priest, I, 107 + + Edward I, I, 359; II, 182 + + Edward III, I, 18, 359 + + Edward IV, I, 15, 21, 30, 362 + + Edward, son of Henry VIII, afterwards Edward VI, I, 77, 240, 349, 374; + II, 297, 299, 319–20, 325, 333 + + Egremont, II, 112 + + Eland, John, I, 164, 166; II, 65–6, 76, 88, 90 + + Eleyn, William, I, 95 + + Elicampadus (Oecolampadius), John, I, 346 + + Elizabeth, afterwards Queen, I, 1, 7, 10, 81, 108, 374; II, 25, 245, + 333 + + Ellerker, Yorks., I, 105; II, 91–2 + + Ellerker, family of, I, 48, 49, 287; II, 72, 91–2 + + Ellerker, —, I, 244 + + Ellerker, Agnes, I, 50, 105 + + Ellerker, Sir Ralph, the elder, I, 48, 50, 151–2; II, 74–5, 88 + + Ellerker, Sir Ralph, the younger + his warning to Aske, II, 91–2 + and the Beverley rebels, I, 147, 159, 163–4, 167 + suppresses Bigod’s rising, II, 74–5, 81, 88, 90–1, 98, 126–7, 132 + his feud with Sir Robert Constable, I, 46; II, 91 + at the first conference at Doncaster, I, 262 + captain of Hull, I, 48, 165, 318; II, 52, 74, 78, 125 + King’s marshal, II, 119 + his mission to the King. _See_ Bowes, Robert, his mission to the + King + and Archbishop Lee, I, 342 + his company of Pilgrims, I, 239, 261 + at the council at Pontefract, I, 345–6 + a commissioner of the Subsidy, I, 105, 141 + at the council at York, I, 312 + reference, I, 143, 155, 235, 238; II, 20, 33, 97, 198, 260, 271–2 + + Ellerker, Ralph, I, 159 + + Ellerker, Sir Robert, I, 199–201 + + Ellerker, Thomas, I, 159, 161 + + Ellerker, William, I, 50, 105, 141 + + Ellerton Priory, I, 51 + + Ellerton, the Prior of. _See_ Lawrence, James + + Elmedon, I, 39 + + Elmedon, William, I, 39 + + Embleton, Cumb., the bailiff of. _See_ Jackson, John + + Emett, Alexander, I, 57; II, 257–8 + + Empress, the. _See_ Isabella + + Empshot, I, 54 + + Empson, Richard, I, 21 + + Enclosures + acts regulating, I, 12–3, 89, 372 + of the common land, I, 373 + in Cumberland and Westmorland, I, 220, 371–2; II, 112, 121 + the King’s instructions about, II, 100, 141 + in Lincolnshire, I, 89 + their progress and effect, I, 73, 349, 369 + rising directed against, I, 225–6, 318, 372 + + England + Clergy of. _See_ Clergy + communications with the Continent closed, I, 333–4, 336, 340, 356 + dangers of a renewed civil war, I, 123, 253; II, 55–6 + espionage in, II, 179 + the Established Church of, I, 374, 376 + feudal dues in, I, 371–2 + relations with France, I, 11, 333–4, 340; II, 240, 243, 249, 281, + 319 + government by council, II, 270 + the law of inheritance in, I, 362–3 + proposed invasion of, I, 16–7, 23, 134; II, 298–9, 311, 319, 331 + its isolation, I, 17, 72; II, 298 + land tenure in, I, 369–70 + and the Netherlands, I, 335–6; II, 282–3 + its political condition, I, chap. i, pp. 1–13, 361; II, 334 + and the Pope, I, 7, 8, 271, 339, 341; II, 280, 287, 298–9, 301, 330 + prophecies about, I, 82–3 + the rebellion in, compared to the German Peasant Revolt, I, 139–40, + 226, 364 + character of rebellions in, II, 332–3 + the Reformation in, I, 51, 59, 75, 340, 347–8; II, 287, 299–302 + state of religion in, I, 9 + expected war with Scotland, I, 334–5; II, 238, 243–5, 247 + Scots outlaws in, II, 263, 267 + Supreme Head of the Church of. _See_ Henry VIII, Supreme Head of the + Church of England + forms of trial in, II, 182 + weapons used in, I, 364 + reference, I, 15, 19, 26, 36, 63, 81, 85, 270, 310, 333, 336–7; II, + 19, 22, 55, 136, 144, 162, 170, 173, 217–8, 228, 241–2, 246, 250, + 254, 278–9, 284, 286, 289, 295, 303, 322, 327–8 + + Ennesmore, I, 217 + + Erasmus, Desiderius, I, 379 + + Errington, Anthony, II, 41 + + Errington, Arthur, I, 197 + + Esch, Robert. _See_ Ashton, Robert + + Escheators, I, 368 + + Esk, the river, I, 35, 196, 223; II, 113, 117, 233 + + Essex county, I, 68, 70, 74, 248; II, 185 + + Essex, Henry Bourchier, Earl of, II, 193 + + Essex, Sir William, I, 328–9 + + Estgate, John, II, 142–3 + + Estgate, Richard, II, 83, 142–5 + + Estoft, Thomas, II, 53 + + Eton, George, I, 100 + + Everingham, I, 240 + + Everingham, Sir Henry, I, 186 + + Evers, family of, I, 37, 44 + + Evers, John, II, 184 + + Evers, Sir Ralph, the elder, II, 70 + + Evers, Sir Ralph, the younger, I, 40, 44, 157, 211, 313, 323; II, 33, + 52, 70, 77, 88, 96–8, 125, 160, 183–4, 211 + + Evers, Ralph, I, 157 + + Evers, —, wife of Sir Ralph the younger, II, 184, 216 + + Evers, Sir William, II, 103, 229, 232, 238–9, 260–1, 272 + + Exeter city, II, 171 + + Exeter, Henry Courtenay, Marquis of + accusations against, II, 190 + his arrest, II, 310 + attainted, II, 323 + his royal blood, I, 15; II, 299, 311 + in command against the rebels, I, 243, 245–7, 249, 257, 259–60, 269, + 329–30; II, 277, 289 + unconnected with the Cornish plot, II, 180–1 + and Cromwell. _See_ Cromwell, Thomas, and Exeter + a member of the King’s Council, I, 276; II, 36 + expelled from the Council, I, 25–6 + banished from court, II, 181, 312 + evidence against, II, 310–3, 319–21 + his execution, II, 315, 318–9, 321 + his friends, II, 290–1, 303, 306, 319 + receives a grant of monastic lands, I, 330; II, 291 + his opinions, II, 292 + a plot in his favour, II, 180–1 + his popularity, II, 291 + Lord High Steward at Darcy’s trial, II, 193 + his trial, II, 314–5 + reference, I, 18, 247; II, 23, 186, 293, 307 + + Exeter, Gertrude Courtenay, Marchioness of (the Lady Marquis), I, 15, + 24–5, 330; II, 289–90, 294, 306, 310, 312–3, 319–21, 323–5 + + Eynesham, the Abbot of, II, 168 + + Eyre, Richard, II, 303–4, 308 + + + Faenza, Ridolfo Pio, Bishop of, papal nuncio at Paris, I, 333–4, 336, + 339; II, 240–2 + + Fairfax, Sir Nicholas, I, 231–2, 312, 345; II, 33, 333 + + Fairfax, Thomas, King’s serjeant at law, II, 272 + + Fairfax, Sir William, I, 162, 237–8, 345; II, 40, 101 + + Fairfax, Thomas, Lord, II, 333 + + Farforth, I, 91 + + Farrore, Harry, I, 236 + + Fawcett, —, I, 209 + + Featherstonhaugh, the laird of, II, 42 + + Felton, I, 31 + + Fendale, I, 262 + + Fenton, Ralph, II, 61, 69, 77, 110 + + Fenwick, I, 49 + + Fenwick, family of, II, 228 + + Fenwick, George, II, 229, 232 + + Fenwick, Roger, II, 229, 234, 236, 246, 261–2 + + Ferdinand, King of Spain, I, 19 + + Fermor, —, I, 327 + + Fermor, Sir Henry, I, 327 + + Fermour, Adam, I, 69 + + Ferriby, I, 105, 162 + + Ferriby Priory, I, 154, 162, 237; II, 20 + the Prior of, I, 162 + + Ferrybridge (Ferrybridges), I, 184, 234, 270, 327 + + Feversham, I, 79 + + Fewaryn (Fitzwarren), Lord, I, 87 + + Field, John, I, 324 + + Fife, II, 246–7 + + Fifteenth, the, I, 11, 137, 372–3 + + Fincham, II, 174 + + Fincham, John, II, 174 + + First Fruits (Annates), Act of, I, 6, 56, 91, 98, 137, 187, 347, 349, + 351–2, 384–5; II, 14, 34 + + Fishe, Guy, II, 70 + + Fisher, John, Cardinal, Bishop of Rochester, I, 11, 23, 63, 68–9, 271, + 354, 384; II, 192, 287 + + Fisher, Matthew, II, 208 + + Fittleworth, I, 326 + + Fitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of Desmond, I, 302 + + Fitzherbert, Sir Anthony, II, 141, 148 + + Fitzwilliam, Sir William, Lord Admiral, I, 26, 117, 119, 123, 128, + 131, 133, 135, 169, 245–6, 274, 276, 278, 290, 295–6, 306, 309, + 311, 316, 319, 321–2, 331; II, 2, 3, 7, 10, 22, 52, 308–9, 316–8, + 324, 326 + + Five Wounds of Christ. _See_ Badge _and_ Banner + + Flamborough, I, 40, 44, 46, 116, 186; II, 125, 198, 255 + + Flanders, I, 83, 286, 357; II, 190, 223, 242–3, 279–84, 286, 288, + 293–4, 326 + + Fletcher, Bernard, II, 153 + + Fletcher, Richard, I, 327 + + Flodden, the battle of, I, 19, 37, 40, 46, 53, 250, 265, 272; II, 45, + 252 + + Follansby, John, II, 134 + + Ford Castle, II, 230, 235 + + Forest, Friar, II, 300 + + Forsett, Edward, I, 100 + + Forster, family of, II, 228, 231 + + Forster, Thomas, I, 199 + + Fortescue, Sir Adrian, II, 324 + + Forth, the frith of, II, 253 + + Foster, Thomas, I, 92; II, 150 + + Fountains Abbey, II, 50, 107, 114, 301 + the Abbot of, I, 211 + the quondam Abbot of. _See_ Thirsk, William + + Fowbery, John, I, 312; II, 64, 65, 81 + + Fox, Edward, Bishop of Hereford, I, 276, 290 + + France, I, 15–6, 19, 21, 45, 60, 83, 132, 247, 325, 332–4, 338, 340, + 357, 375; II, 10, 25, 95, 217, 238, 240–3, 247, 249, 255–6, 267, + 281–2, 284–5, 319–20, 322 + ambassador in England. _See_ Castillon, Louis de Perreau, Sieur de + Constable of. _See_ Montmorency, Anne de + the court of parliament of, II, 240 + Vice-Admiral of. _See_ Moy, Charles de + + Francis I, King of France, I, 2, 11, 17, 325, 331, 333–5, 338, 340; + II, 240, 242–3, 245, 247, 249, 255, 267, 281–2, 285, 298–9, 319, + 331 + his daughter. _See_ Madeleine + + Francis, John, II, 61–2, 82 + + Franke, Thomas, rector of Lofthouse, I, 148–9; II, 159, 161–4 + + Frankishe, John, I, 93–4 + + Franklin, William, Archdeacon of Durham, I, 203–4; II, 61 + + Fredewell, James, II, 243–4 + + Freeman, John, II, 155 + + Friars + Austin, I, 105, 118 + Black (Preachers), I, 65–6, 82, 280, 382; II, 167 + Grey, I, 65, 83; II, 167 + Observant, I, 57, 63, 352, 388; II, 21, 39, 127 + White, I, 64–5, 83; II, 166 + + Froude, J. A. ‘History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the + Defeat of the Armada’, I, 44–5, 75, 240, 387; II, 53, 154, 180–1, + 215, 289, 296–7, 299, 309, 311, 324 + + Frythe (Frith), John, I, 93 + + Fulstow, I, 98 + + Fulthorp, —, I, 345; II, 92, 184 + + Fulthorp, Thomas, II, 95 + + Furness, I, 369 + + Furness Abbey, I, 81, 218, 225, 283; II, 144–8 + the Abbot of, I, 217; II, 145–6, 156 + + + Gainsborough, I, 108, 293, 319 + + Galant, John, II, 175 + + Galowbaughen, I, 202 + + Galtres Forest, I, 73, 74 + + Ganth, Hans, I, 42 + + Ganton, II, 61 + + Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of Winchester, I, 132, 276, 325, 333, 367, + 374, 375; II, 256–7, 281–2 + + Gargrave, II, 43 + + Gascoigne, Master, I, 148 + + Gascoigne, Sir Henry, I, 202, 345; II, 21, 132 + + Gasquet, F. A. ‘Henry VIII and the English Monasteries’, I, 140; II, + 138 + + Gateforth, II, 51 + + Gateshead, II, 244 + + Gaunt, William, I, 216 + + Gawan, Archbishop of Glasgow, Chancellor of Scotland, II, 247–9 + + Genoa, I, 335 + + Gentlemen of the North + and the Church, I, 55–6 + their lack of education, I, 50; II, 18 + a typical example, I, 54 + their family history, I, 29 + their feuds, I, 46; II, 268 + their grievances, I, 3, 28, 59; II, 330 + their share in local government, I, 29; II, 332 + their good and bad qualities, I, 60 + their part in the rebellion, II, 92–4, 100, 157–8 + their conduct after the rebellion, II, 90, 137, 157 + and their tenants, I, 89, 369–70, 372–3; II, 96, 100, 105, 108–9, + 112, 115, 121, 156–7, 175, 177 + sympathy with rioters, I, 73 + + Germany, I, 17, 367; II, 298–9 + the Peasant Revolt of 1525 in, I, 28, 78, 80, 126, 139–40, 225–6, + 364, 370–2; II, 226 + + Gibson, —, I, 101 + + Gifford, —, I, 264 + + Giggleswick I, 209; II, 43 + + Gill, Harry, sub-prior of Watton, I, 231–2, 286; II, 58–60, 62, 64, + 81–2, 110 + + Gilsland, II, 42, 115–6, 235, 264 + + Girlington, Nicholas, I, 106 + + Gisburn, the vicar of, I, 213 + + Glamis, Lady, II, 216 + + Glaskerion, William, II, 167 + + Gloucester city, I, 287; II, 290 + + Gloucester county, I, 245–6 + + Godalming, I, 117 + + Goldsmith, William, I, 93 + + Gonson, William, I, 122, 299, 319 + + Goodall, —, I, 324 + + Goodrich, Thomas, Bishop of Ely, I, 98, 111; II, 168, 316–7. + _See also_ Demands of the rebels + + Goole, I, 298 + + Goole Dyke, I, 250 + + Gostwick, John, I, 246, 251; II, 34, 44 + + Gower, Sir Edward, I, 345; II, 136 + + Gower, Ralph, II, 44, 85 + + Grafton, I, 45; II, 267 + + Graham, the family of, II, 117 + + Grame, Robin, II, 117 + + Grantham, I, 65, 274; II, 303 + + Gray, Lionel, I, 194, 200; II, 228, 232, 261 + + Gray’s Inn, I, 54, 58, 80, 155; II, 223 + + Graystoke, —, II, 110 + + Green, Dorothy, I, 51; II, 38 + + Green, Richard, I, 51–2; II, 38 + + Greenwich, I, 23, 46, 63; II, 25, 99 + the Friary, II, 194 + + Gressoms. _See_ Ingressum + + ‘Grey Friars’ Chronicle’, II, 198 + + Grey (Gray), family of, II, 41, 231 + + Grey (Gray), Sir Roger, I, 200, 285 + + Grey, Roger, II, 63–4 + + Grey, Sir Thomas, I, 200; II, 41 + + Greystoke, I, 222 + + Grice (Gryce), Thomas, I, 169, 235, + 237–8, 269, 295, 310, 311, 343, 347; II, 189, 215 + + Griffith, Sir Rhys, ap I, 287–8 + + Grimsby, I, 79–80, 95, 105, 110–1, 118, 162, 282, 286, 299, 301, 314, + 318–9, 322; II, 104 + + Grinston, —, I, 155 + + Grinton, II, 110 + + Grysanis, Anne, I, 45, 61 + + Guaras, Antonio, I, 240 + + Guildford, I, 117 + + Guisborough, II, 97, 110, 127, 160 + the Bishop’s palace, II, 40 + the priest of, I, 71 + Priory, I, 233; II, 40, 56, 201 + Prior of. _See_ Silvester, Robert quondam Prior of. + _See_ Cockerell, James + + Guisborough, George, II, 175–6, 178–9 + + Guisborough, William, II, 176, 178–9 + + Guise, Mary of. _See_ Mary of Guise + + Gunter, Geoffrey, I, 328–9 + + Gunter, John, II, 308–9, 326, 328 + + + Haggar, Stephen, I, 102 + + Hagnaby, I, 101 + + Hailes, the Abbot of, II, 169 + + Hales, Sir Christopher, Master of the Rolls, I, 103, 111; II, 199. + _See also_ Demands of the rebels + + Halifax, I, 115, 235; II, 28, 257 + the vicar of. _See_ Holdsworth, Robert + + Hall, family of, II, 228, 231 + + Hall, Anthony, II, 230 + + Hall, Edward, ‘The Union of the Families of Lancaster and York’, I, 55 + + Hall, John, II, 230 + + Hall, Sandy, II, 230–1 + + Hallam, John + his arrest, II, 65–6, 73, 76, 90, 221 + restrained by Aske, II, 48–50 + in the Beverley rising, I, 153, 157 + and Sir Francis Bigod. _See_ Bigod, Sir Francis, and John Hallam + his character and opinions, I, 152; II, 46–7 + captures Cromwell’s letter to young Sir Ralph Evers, I, 314 + his execution, II, 82, 89, 91, 98 + his attempt on Hull. _See_ Hull, Hallam’s attempt to seize + his insurrection, II, chap. xviii, pp. 55 _et seq._, 99, 102, 199 + dissatisfied with the general pardon, II, 31, 69 + at the council at Pontefract, I, 343, 347 + a prisoner, II, 73, 78, 81–2, 88, 91, 98, 206, 209 + attempts to cause a new rising, II, 46–8, 59 + and seditious songs, I, 280 + his quarrel with the Prior of Watton, II, 58–60 + at the council at York, I, 318; II, 57 + reference, II, 16 + + Haltemprice Abbey, I, 154; II, 20 + + Halton, Northumberland, I, 194–7, 201 + + Halton Castle, Cheshire, I, 214 + + Hambleton Hill, Lincs., I, 106–7, 141 + + Hambleton Hills, Yorks., II, 97 + + Hamell, II, 171 + + Hamerton, the family of, I, 51 + + Hamerton, —, I, 345 + + Hamerton, Elizabeth, mother of Sir Stephen, I, 53 + + Hamerton, Elizabeth, wife of Sir Stephen, I, 40 + + Hamerton, Henry, I, 53; ii, 204 + + Hamerton, John, I, 53 + + Hamerton, Roger, I, 53 + + Hamerton, Sir Stephen, I, 40, 51, 53, 209–10, 219, 312, 345; II, 39, + 43, 83, 85–6, 133, 135, 143, 198, 201, 204, 211, 214 + + Hampole nunnery, I, 251–2, 254–6, 259–60, 264 + + Hampshire, I, 54, 326, 332; II, 222 + + Handguns and Crossbows, the Statute of, I, 363–4; II, 243 + + Harbottle, —, I, 33 + + Harbottle Castle, II, 42, 235, 239 + constable of. _See_ Heron, John + + Hardwick in Sherwood, I, 118–9 + + Hardy, William Keing. _See_ Captain Cobbler + + Harland, J. ‘Salley Abbey’, II, 143 + + Harlaw Woods, II, 233 + + Harrington, Mr, I, 112 + + Harrington, William, lord mayor of York, I, 143, 168, 174–6, 243, 344; + II, 76 + + Harrison, —, I, 156 + + Harrison, Richard, Abbot of Kirkstead, I, 104, 106; II, 152 + + Harrison, William, II, 31 + + Hartlepool, I, 205 + + Hartlepool, Roger, II, 107–8, 266 + + Harwich, I, 68 + + Hastings, Sir Brian, sheriff of Yorkshire 1536–7, I, 49, 121, 148, + 168–9, 185, 208, 250, 261, 282, 288, 293, 296–8, 300, 306, 308, + 311, 319, 321, 344; II, 132, 134, 260, 273 + + Hastings, Sir George, I, 49 + + Hastings, Sir John, I, 49 + + Hastings, Dame Katherine, I, 49 + + Hatcliff, Thomas, I, 314 + + Hatfield, Yorks., I, 169, 185, 250, 282; II, 10–11 + + Havant, I, 332; II, 308 + a harper of. _See_ Taylor, Lawrence + + Haverfordwest, the Prior of, I, 67 + + Hawley, Thomas, Clarencieux King-of-Arms, II, 21, 23, 28, 53 + + Haynton, I, 90 + + Headcorn, the curate of, II, 168 + + Hebyllthwayte, John, I, 217 + + Hedge, John, I, 155 + + Hedon, I, 388 + + Helaigh, —, II, 266 + + Heliar, John, vicar of East Meon and rector of Warblington, I, 332; + II, 284, 303–5, 316 + + Hellifield Peel, I, 53 + + Helmsley, II, 266 + + Hemingborough, I, 141, 144 + + Henneage, John, I, 93–5, 99, 107, 109–10, 320 + + Henry II, I, 64 + + Henry III, I, 84 + + Henry IV, I, 84–5, 362, 383 + + Henry VI, I, 30, 359; II, 329 + + Henry VII, I, 15, 18, 34, 45, 63, 85, 218, 303, 332, 337, 362, 366, + 373 + + Henry VIII + his accession to the throne, I, 19, 21, 30 + and Robert Aske I, 191, 289–91, 294, 298, 304, 313, 321, 323; II, 6, + 18–19, 32–3, 36–8, 45, 48–51, 54, 72–3, 76, 89–91, 99, 104–5, + 130, 207–10, 222–5 + receives news of Bigod’s insurrection, II, 75–6 + and the Borders, I, 30, 35, 190. + _See also_ Borders, the King’s plan for their government + compared to + David, I, 358 + Henry II, I, 64 + Herod, I, 72 + Nero, II, 167 + Rehoboam, Edward II and Richard II, I, 357 + and Thomas Cromwell. _See_ Cromwell, Thomas, and the King + and Darcy. _See_ Darcy, Thomas, Lord, and the King + and the Earl of Derby, I, 214–7, 316 + his disease, II, 260, 277, 293, 295 + his domestic relations, I, 1, 20–21, 24–6, 31, 87, 108, 133, 325, + 354, 356 + and the first appointment at Doncaster. _See below_ and the truce + and the second appointment at Doncaster, II, chap. xv, pp. 1–23, 56, + 88, 102, 111, 126, 188, 206, 287, 292, 332 + his ecclesiastical policy, I, 2–4, 5–11, 44, 56, 63–7, 72, 74–5, 77, + 86, 104, 193–4, 208, 214–5, 324, 339, 341, 343, 350–2, 374–6; II, + 14, 21–2, 25–6, 38–9, 85, 111, 121–2, 127, 138–9, 143–8, 292, + 298, 330–2 + his finances, I, 2, 11–2, 154, 168, 244, 246–7, 330–1, 349, 357, + 372–3; II, 9, 17, 26, 33–5, 44–5, 49, 100, 184 + foreign affairs, I, 2–3, 16–7, 132, 324–5, 333–6, 338, 340, 356–7; + II, 241–3, 245–7, 255–6, 267, 298–9, 319 + fears a general rising throughout England, I, 166, 244, 330 + land held in chief from, I, 12, 365, 368 + and Archbishop Lee, I, 150, 195, 380, 382 + his reply to the Lincs. rebels. _See_ Proclamations, Royal + and the Lincs. rebellion, I, 89, 91, 98–9, 107–8, 117, 119–20, 123, + 134–6, 140, 165–6, 242, 335; II, 151 + misapprehension of his character, I, 60, 87, 190, 207, 209, 236, + 253, 257–8, 271, 281, 358; II, 15, 37, 45, 172, 292, 329, 331 + and the nobles, I, 14–5, 21, 35, 37; II, 185–6, 227, 252–3 + and the Duke of Norfolk. _See_ Norfolk, the Duke of, and the King + his proposed visit to the north, II, 89, 100, 134, 242, 250–1, 255, + 259–60, 325 + reorganisation of the northern counties, II, 103, chap. xxi, pp. 226 + _et seq._ + heir of the Earl of Northumberland. _See_ Northumberland, the Earl + of, act assuring his lands to the King + Oath of allegiance to. _See_ Oath of allegiance + and the pacification of the north, II, 99–101, 121–2, 127, 141, 144, + 226–7, 286 + reluctant to grant a general pardon, I, 273–4; II, 7, 27, 52–3, 68, + 100 + his pardons. _See_ Pardon + his private promises of pardon, I, 323; II, 6, 37 + his influence on parliament, I, 3, 21, 359–61, 388; II, 26, 55 + the rebels’ petitions to. _See_ Demands of the rebels + proposes to lead an army against the Pilgrims, I, 112, 242–3, 273, + 331, 338; II, 8 + his replies to the Pilgrims’ Demands, I, 211, 263–4, 267, 274–8, + 280, 289, 291–3, 295, 309, 315, 321–3, 331, 357; II, 1–2, 4, + 11–4, 31, 35, 45, 51, 53, 72, 194 + receives the Pilgrims’ messengers, I, 274, 308–9, 313, 334 + his policy with the Pilgrims, I, 278–81, 295–6, 308, 311, 314, + 321–2, 324, 376; II, 3–4, 6, 12–4, 18, 23, chap. xvi, pp. 24 _et + seq._, 55, 59, 68, 82, 88, 105, 112, 280, 333 + his preparations against the Pilgrims, I, 173, 240, 241–9, 279, 282, + 294–5, 319–20, 331; II, 6–7 + his first proclamation to the Pilgrims. _See_ Proclamations, Royal + and Reginald Pole, I, 16–7, 336–8; II, 277, 279, 281–3, 285–9, 295, + 302, 305–6, 310, 317, 322 + prophecies about. _See_ Prophecies + Rhymes and rumours about. _See_ Rumour, _and_ Sedition, rhymes + the question of safe-conducts, I, 309, 317, 322, 345–6, 379; II, 2, + 8, 10–12, 23 + correspondence with the Earl of Shrewsbury. _See_ Shrewsbury, the + Earl of, and the King + the problem of his successor, I, 1, 317–8, 356, 362–3, 374; II, 297 + correspondence with the Duke of Suffolk. _See_ Suffolk, the Duke of, + correspondence with the King + Supreme Head of the Church of England + acceptance of the title, I, 73, 76, 98, 139, 263, 347, 385; II, + 316 + the King asserts the title, I, 2, 6, 7, 10–11, 71–3, 275; II, 30, + 35, 101 + the clergy’s opinion of the title, I, 6; II, 59 + the nation’s opinion of the title, II, 36 + opposition to the title, I, 6, 11, 16, 69, 71, 72, 76, 212–3, 263, + 326, 344, 347–8, 383–5; II, 57, 59, 60, 68, 79, 82, 137, 145–6, + 198, 278, 293, 295, 300–1, 312, 319 + proposed limitations of his powers, I, 348, 374, 383, 385 + treason to discuss the title, I, 366 + reference, I, 9, 339, 353; II, 166 + and the Treason Act, I, 11; II, 191, 192–3, 278 + his influence on trials, II, 131–3, 135–7, 192–3, 204 + and the truce of Doncaster, I, 270–4, 279, 282 + his unpopularity, I, 69–70, 79, 207, 218, 258; II, 179, 247, 254, + 293, 297–8, 301, 319 + and the White Rose Party, I, 17–18; II, 275–6, chap. xxii, pp. 277 + _et seq._, chap. xxiii, pp. 297 _et seq._ + reference, I, 13, 19, 22, 28–9, 35, 46, 54–6, 61, 83, 115, 130–1, + 142, 167, 183, 187, 198, 204, 226, 233, 235, 239, 240, 248, 254, + 265, 286, 300, 319, 335, 355, 364, 371–2, 379; II, 24, 47, 58, + 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 76, 81, 84, 87, 90, 96–7, 173, 175, 181–2, + 197, 199, 201, 207, 215–6, 300, 303 + + Henryson, —, I, 344 + + Herbert, Lord, of Cherbury, ‘Life of Henry VIII’, I, 267 + + Hereford, the Bishop of. _See_ Fox, Edward + + Heresy. _See_ New Learning + + Herington, —, I, 264 + + Heron, Anthony, I, 44 + + Heron, George, I, 197; II, 261–3 + + Heron, John, of Chipchase, I, 195–7, 199, 299; II, 41–2, 230, 232–3, + 261–3 + + Heron of Ford, II, 235 + + Heron, John, of the Hall Barns, II, 261, 263 + + Hert, Robert, I, 93 + + Hert, William, I, 93 + + Hertford, I, 326; II, 244 + + Hessle, I, 152–3 + + Hexham _alias_ Topcliffe, John, Abbot of Whitby, I, 41–3, 350 + + Hexham Priory, I, 41, 75, 192–6, 198, 200, 208, 225; II, 121–2, 124, + 232–3 + the sub-prior of, I, 193–4 + + Hexham town, I, 194; II, 41, 122, 124, 275 + + Hexhamshire, II, 41, 235 + + Heydock, William, II, 142 + + Heydon, Sir John, II, 175 + + Heyton Wansdale. _See_ Marston + + Hilliard (Hillyard), Sir Christopher, I, 155, 159, 161, 345; II, 81 + + Hilsey, John, Bishop of Rochester, I, 98, 111, 353; II, 208 + + Hilton Castle, I, 204 + + Hilton, family of, I, 36–7 + + Hilton, Hugh, I, 312 + + Hilton, Robert, I, 221 + + Hilton, Sir Thomas, sheriff of Durham, I, 204–6, 252, 262, 264–5, 284, + 345–6, 376; II, 11, 21, 38, 104, 256 + + Hinde, John, the King’s solicitor, I, 87; II, 151, 204 + + Hinderwell, II, 88, 159 + + Hodge, Robert, curate of Whitburn, II, 254–6 + + Hogon, John, I, 266; II, 174 + + Holderness, I, 145, 153, 155, 157, 159–61, 163, 167, 232, 242, 318; + II, 9, 27, 47, 49, 62–4, 74–5, 82, 90, 301 + + Holdsworth, Richard, I, 61 + + Holdsworth, Robert, vicar of Halifax, I, 56–7, 61, 236, 286; II, 257–9 + + Holgate, Robert, Prior of Watton, I, 285–7; II, 40, 58, 60, 82, 272 + + Holidays + Christmas customs, I, 41, 68; II, 61 + May games, II, 176 + Michaelmas 1536, I, 78, 84, 86, 91 + Midsummer customs, I, 41 + order for, I, 9, 10, 383 + Plough Monday, II, 47 + their prohibition causes discontent, I, 152–3, 202, 220; II, 170–1, + 174 + the rebels demand their restoration, I, 383; II, 171 + shooting at the flyte and standard, II, 175 + + Holinshed, Raphael, ‘Chronicles of England’, I, 116, 272 + + Holland, Lincs., I, 103, 111–2, 118, 121, 131 + + Holland, Hugh, II, 284–6, 294–5, 303–6, 309, 311, 315–7 + + Holm Cultram Abbey, I, 222, 225; II, 116, 123, 138, 263 + the Abbot of. _See_ Carter, Thomas _and_ Ireby, Thomas + + Holme-in-Spalding Moor, II, 50, 72–3, 75, 91 + + Holme, Wilfred, ‘The Fall and Evil Success of Rebellion’, I, 84, 179, + 191, 287, 306; II, 118, 138, 160, 217 + + Holy Island, Northumberland, I, 226 + + Holyrood, II, 244, 254 + + Hooke Moor, I, 156 + + Hopton, Sir Arthur, I, 122 + + Horncastle, I, 89, 101, 103–6, 111, 114, 124–5, 128, 129, 130, 135, + 139, 153; II, 106, 149, 153 + + Hornchurch, I, 74 + + Horncliff, Robert, I, 162, 288–9; II, 152 + + Horner, Thomas, I, 87; II, 172 + + Horskey, William, I, 343; II, 47, 49, 61, 63–4, 81–2, 90 + + Horsley, II, 290–1, 311, 313, 320 + + Horsley, John, II, 232 + + Horwood, William, II, 151 + + Hotham, Robert, I, 157–8 + + Houghton juxta Harpley, II, 179 + + House of Commons. _See_ Parliament + + House of Lords. _See_ Parliament + + Howard, family of, II, 252 + + Howard, Queen Katherine, II, 325 + + Howard, Katherine, widow of Rhys ap Griffith, I, 287–8 + + Howard, Lord Thomas, I, 242, 318; II 23 + + Howard, Lord William, I, 259; II, 10, 23, 46, 291 + + Howden, I, 142, 144, 156, 293, 298, 318; II, 27, 40 + + Howdenshire, I, 141–2, 148–9, 154–8, 160, 169–70, 192, 230, 262; II, + 163 + + Hudson, Clement, II, 62 + + Hudswell, George, I, 96, 105, 113, 125, 130, 289; II, 148–9, 153 + + Hugill, Robert, II, 159 + + Hull + Beverley gate, I, 161; II, 65, 220–1 + the Busse ditch, II, 65 + captain of. _See_ Ellerker, Sir Ralph, the younger + the Charterhouse. _See_ Carthusians of Hull + the parish church, I, 158 + proposed fortification of, II, 45–8, 51–2, 67, 71, 78–9, 88 + Hallam’s attempt to seize, II, 47–8, 60–8, 71–3, 76, 81, 97 + the Hermitage, I, 161, 164 + its loyalty to the King, I, 155, 159, 282; II, 47, 74, 77 + market, II, 63–4, 220 + the mayor of. _See_ Rogers, William + Bigod’s messengers to, II, 73–4. + _See also below_, prisoners + vessels of I, 161, 286, 299, 336; II, 51 + pardon proclaimed in, II, 27 + parliamentary representatives, I, 359, 388 + in the Pilgrim’s hands, I, 167, 235, 286, 288, 297, 299, 301, 309, + 318, 324; II, 8–9 + the plague in, II, 222 + prisoners in, II, 73–8, 81, 88–91, 98, 102, 126, 206, 209 + the siege of, I, 146, 155–61, 163–6, 183, 223, 231, 235 + surrender of, I, 163–4, 166–8, 239, 244; II, 65, 77, 90 + reference, I, 79, 153, 174, 285, 310; II, 52, 80 + + Hullshire, I, 160–1 + + Humber, the river, I, 42, 78, 91, 105–6, 130, 141, 143, 145, 153, 157, + 160–1, 164, 172, 245, 282, 319 + + Hume, Lord, I, 37 + + Hundred Years War, the, II, 55 + + Hungate, Thomas, II, 82 + + Hunsley Beacon, I, 148, 153, 166–7 + + Huntingdon town, I, 120–2, 128, 133, 241–2; II, 32, 220 + + Huntingdon, George Hastings, Earl of, I, 118, 122, 129, 131, 265, 312, + 361 + + Huntington, Yorks., I, 84 + + Husee, John, II, 19, 141, 193, 307 + + Huss, John, I, 346 + + Hussey, Master, I, 148 + + Hussey, Anne, wife of John, Lord, I, 21, 25–6, 113, 130–1; II, 195, + 215 + + Hussey, John, Lord, I, 21–5, 96, 99, 100–1, 103–4, 108–10, 112–3, 116, + 118–9, 130–2, 246, 289–92, 331; II, 149, 185–6, 195–7, 205 + + Hussey, Sir William, father of Lord Hussey, I, 21 + + Hussey, Sir William, son of Lord Hussey, I, 118, 131 + + Hutchinson, William, I, 101 + + Hutton, Cumberland, I, 222 + + Hutton Cranswick, I, 157; II, 62 + + Hutton, Anthony, I, 221; II, 106 + + Hutton, John, governor of the Merchant Adventurers of Antwerp, I, + 335–6; II, 224, 281, 283, 322 + + Hutton, Thomas, of Snaith, I, 273; II, 126, 134 + + + Indictments, II, 135, 153–4, 198, 211, 314, 320 + + Ingleby, Sir William, I, 45 + + Ingressum, the, I, 369–72; II, 96, 121, 141 + + Injunctions of the Court of Chancery, I, 366–7 + + Injunctions, the First Royal, I, 10; II, 170 + + Inner Temple, I, 90 + + Inns of Court, I, 55, 367 + + Interdict, the Bull of, I, 11, 72 + + Ipswich, II, 166 + + —— the White Friars, II, 166 + + Ireby, Anthony, I, 112, 131 + + Ireby, Thomas, Abbot of Holm Cultram, II, 138 + + Ireland, I, 38, 287, 302; II, 159, 162, 287 + + Isabella, Empress of Charles V, I, 335–6 + + Isle, the, Durham, I, 204, 205, 226 + + Isle of Wight, I, 326 + + Italy, I, 4, 16, 47, 364; II, 247, 279, 284, 289, 302 + + + Jackson, John, II, 118, 120 + + Jackson, Richard, II, 164 + + Jakes, —, I, 209 + + James IV, King of Scotland, I, 272 + + James V, King of Scotland, I, 1, 23, 287, 333–5, 340, 355–6, 363; II, + 10, 86, 95, 134, 216, 240–50, 253–6, 263, 266–8, 298–9 + + Jay, Edward, Prior of Hexham, I, 193–5 + + Jedburgh Abbey, II, 246 + + Jedworth Forest, II, 233 + + Jeffreys, Judge, II, 120 + + Jenney, Christopher, I, 59, 62 + + Jepson, Isabel, I, 61 + + Jerusalem, I, 82, 214 + + Jervaux Abbey, I, 43, 202–3, 206, 211, 283; II, 106–8, 138–9, 145, + 214, 252, 266 + Abbot of. _See_ Sedbarr, Adam + + Jervyse, Harry, II, 174 + + Jewel House, the, I, 244 + + Jherom, —, II, 199 + + Jobson, Brian, I, 216 + + John the Baptist, St, I, 72 + + John, St, of Beverley, I, 45, 144 + + John, St, of Jerusalem, II, 40 + + John the Piper, I, 319 + + Johnson’s house, II, 46 + + Johnson, Mr, II, 64 + + Johnson, Thomas (Brother Bonaventure), I, 57–8, 62, 147–8 + + Johnson, Dom Thomas, I, 62 + + Johnson, Sir Thomas, I, 345 + + Jons, Robert, II, 215, 217 + + Jonson, William, I, 248 + + Julian Bower, I, 100 + + + Katherine, youngest daughter of Edward IV, I, 15 + + Katherine of Arragon, I, 1, 7, 14–18, 20, 21, 22–25, 69, 80–1, 133, + 178, 339, 354, 356; II, 299, 302, 320–1, 324 + + Kedington, I, 92, 126 + + Kelet Moor, I, 217 + + Kelsey, II, 180 + + Kendal, barony, I, 307, 345, 349, 369; II, 96 + + Kendal, borough, I, 213, 216–8, 226, 316, 319, 345, 359; II, 20–1, 28, + 30, 41 + the bailiff of. _See_ Collins, Wm + + Kendall, —, II, 181 + + Kendall, Thos., vicar of Louth, I, 92; II, 153–4 + + Kene, John, II, 167 + + Kenilworth Castle, II, 170 + + Kenninghall, I, 107, 121, 242; II, 99, 101 + + Kensey, —, I, 156 + + Kent, county, I, 134, 326; II, 167, 243, 293 + + Kent, George Grey, Earl of, I, 21 + + Kermounde, I, 98 + + Kesteven, I, 131 + + Kettlewell, II, 43, 85, 129 + + Kevin, St, II, 170 + + Kexby, I, 174 + + Kilton, II, 160 + + Kilwatling How, I, 222 + + Kimbolton, I, 23, 122 + + King, Henry, II, 266 + + King’s Lynn, II, 170, 174, 179 + + Kingston, Sir Wm, I, 247, 290 + + Kingswood, I, 65 + + Kirkby in Cleveland, II, 159 + + Kirkby Lonsdale, I, 207 + + Kirkby Malzyerd, I, 52 + + Kirkby Ravensworth, I, 201; II, 21 + the rector of. _See_ Dakyn, John + + Kirkbyshire, I, 202, 262, 369; II, 51 + + Kirkby Stephen, I, 221; II, 44, 106, 112–3, 117, 120 + the curate of, I, 220 + + Kirk Deighton, I, 382 + the rector of. _See_ Waldby, Marmaduke + + Kirkham Priory, I, 233 + + Kirkstall, the Abbot of. _See_ Ripley, John + + Kirkstead Abbey, I, 104, 106, 114, 126; II, 152–3 + the Abbot of. _See_ Harrison, Ric. + + Kirton, Thos, I, 107 + + Kirton Soke, I, 106–7, 110 + + Kitchen, Roger, I, 145, 148, 150, 273; II, 61–4, 78, 82 + + Kitchin, ‘Acts of the Northern Convocation’, I, 388 + + Kite, John, Bishop of Carlisle, I, 78, 117, 220 + + Knaresborough, I, 388 + the forest of, I, 163 + St Robert’s Friary, I, 151, 153, 175; II, 61–2, 68–9, 106, 121, 266 + + Knevet, Mr, I, 234 + + Knight, —, II, 3 + + Knolles, John, I, 164, 166; II, 65, 90 + + Knutsford, II, 169 + + Kyme, Guy, I, 78–80, 94–6, 98, 111, 115, 130, 152–7, 174; II, 152–3, + 180 + + Kyme, Thos, II, 180 + + + Lacy, family of, I, 236; II, 257 + + Lacy, John, I, 57, 61, 235–6 + + Lacy, Lancelot, II, 70–1 + + Lacy, Thomas, I, 236–7; II, 257 + + Lambart, John, I, 286 + + Lambeth, John, I, 233 + + Lamerside Hall, I, 221 + + Lamplough, Sir John, II, 110, 120 + + Lamprecht, K., ‘Deutsche Geschichte,’ I, 225 + + Lancashire + boundaries, I, 226 + the Earl of Derby’s musters, I, 215–6, 219, 282; II, 7, 52 + disaffection in, I, 169, 171, 212–5, 227; II, 188 + pardon proclaimed in, II, 28 + the Pilgrimage of Grace in, I, 212–3, 215, 216–9, 236, 314; II, 144 + trials, II, 141–8 + the truce in, I, 219–20, 269–70, 279, 292, 294, 316, 317, 319; II, + 147 + reference, I, 294, 304–6, 349; II, 119, 170 + + Lancaster, the House of, I, 362 + + Lancaster Herald. _See_ Miller, Thomas + + Lancaster town, I, 216–9, 239; II, 28, 142–3 + Castle, II, 146–7 + the mayor of, I, 218 + + Lanercost Priory, II, 121–2 + + Langdale, Hugh, II, 47, 49, 58, 63–4, 81–2, 90 + + Langgrische, Richard, I, 332 + + Langley, barony of, II, 235 + + Langley Castle, I, 197, 201 + + Langrege, Dr, Archdeacon of Cleveland, I, 382 + + Langthorn, Anthony, I, 345 + + Langton, Sir John, I, 18 + + Langwith Lane End, I, 111 + + Lartington, the chantry priest of. _See_ Tristram, William + + Lasingham, —, II, 158 + + Lassells, George, II, 53 + + Lassells, Richard, I, 345 + + Lassells, Roger, I, 238, 261, 345–6 + + Lastingham, II, 95, 97, 159 + + Lateran, the Council of the, I, 384 + + Lather, Thomas, cellarer of Watton Priory, II, 63, 82 + + Lathom, I, 217, 220; II, 43 + + Latimer, John Neville, Lord, I, 163, 182, 185, 201–3, 205–6, 231, 235, + 237–8, 252, 262, 265, 312, 345, 377–8; II, 4, 13, 33, 61, 80, 87, + 108–9, 160, 184–6 + + Latimer, Hugh, Bishop of Worcester, I, 1, 43, 65, 98, 111, 114, 274, + 326, 353; II, 25, 166, 199, 305, 318 + + Lawrence, James, Prior of Ellerton, I, 287; II, 58, 60, 62 + + Lawson, Sir George, I, 143, 174, 180–1, 232, 235, 243, 316, 344, 382; + II, 34, 44, 138–9, 248 + + Layborne, Parson, II, 31 + + Layton, Dr Richard, clerk of the Chancery, I, 71, 114, 183, 318, 354, + 367; II, 199, 204 + + Layton, Dr, preacher, II, 259 + + Leache, Nicholas, I, 101, 124; II, 151, 153–4 + + Leache, Robert, I, 129; II, 151, 153–4 + + Leache, William, I, 101–2; II, 83–6, 106, 113, 121, 129, 151, 202, 266 + + Leckonfield, II, 80–1, 264 + + Ledam, John, I, 42 + + Lee, Christopher, I, 299 + + Lee, Edward, Archbishop of York + and Robert Aske, I, 191, 240, 254, 342–3, 377, 380–2, 385, 387 + his disputes with Beverley, I, 147 + his brother, I, 161 + and Lord Darcy, I, 150, 252, 377, 379–8; II, 14, 34 + and the King’s policy, I, 9, 71, 193–5 + and the Pilgrims’ demands, I, 254, 263, 315, 342–3, 347, 352, 377–8, + 383 + at Pontefract Castle, I, 150–1, 170, 185–8, 190–1, 227, 228, 240, + 252, 292, 302 + his sermon at Pontefract, I, 377–82; II, 10, 12, 154, 300 + and the rebellion, I, 143, 150, 175, 201, 256, 330, 340, 343, + 376–81, 385–6; II, 130, 330 + his servants, I, 212 + his steward, I, 151 + and the taxation of the clergy, II, 34, 49 + reference, I, 264; II, 14, 33, 40, 259 + + Lee, Sir Robert, I, 311 + + Lee, Roland, Bishop of Coventry, II, 166 + + Leeds, II, 28, 51, 111, 127 + + Legate, Robert, II, 145–6 + + Legbourne Nunnery, I, 95, 112; II, 154 + + Legh, Thomas, I, 114, 133, 183, 318, 354, 367; II, 112, 134, 199, 204, + 208 + + Leicestershire, I, 113 + + Leicester town, I, 321; II, 3, 244 + + Leith Haven, II, 254 + + Lenton Priory, II, 39, 179 + + Letters, Royal, Letters Missive, Royal Commissions + circular letter to the Bishops, I, 324; II, 9, 14 + commission on the condition of the clergy, I, 91, 94 + commission to the Earl of Derby, I, 215 + concerning Hexham Priory, I, 194 + to the Lincs. rebels, I, 123, 126–7 + to muster troops, I, 108–10, 112, 116–8, 121, 173–4 + for attendance on the Duke of Norfolk, II, 101 + citation to London, II, 104–5, 125, 133, 157–62, 165, 185, 211, 215, + 218 + concerning the title of Supreme Head of the Church I, 7 + joint commission of lieutenancy to Shrewsbury and Norfolk. _See_ + Norfolk, 3rd Duke of, his joint commission of lieutenancy with + Shrewsbury + + Levening, William, II, 47, 66, 92, 131–3, 136–7, 188, 206, 209, 216 + + Lewes, Adam, II, 243 + + Ley, Thomas, II, 34 + + Leyborne, Sir James, I, 216–7 + + Leyborne, Nicholas, I, 216 + + Liddesdale, II, 233, 238, 261–3, 268 + + Liége, II, 283, 285–7, 294–5, 326 + + Lillesdale Hall (Bilsdale?), II, 266 + + Limehouse, II, 195 + + Limoges, Bishop of, II, 254 + + Lincoln city + the Angel Inn, I, 142 + assizes, II, 153 + the Bishop’s palace, I, 111 + the cathedral, I, 127, 135, 319 + the castle, II, 150 + the Castle Garth, I, 129 + the chapter house, I, 115, 123, 127, 140 + the close, I, 111, 115, 127, 135 + the dean’s house, I, 319 + executions there. _See_ Lincs. rebellion, executions + monastery of St Katherine, II, 58, 60 + the mayor of. _See_ Sutton, Robert + Mile Cross towards Nettleham, I, 114 + New Port, I, 113 + prisoners in, I, 281, 288–9, 319; II, 24, 148, 150–1, 153 + the rebels in, I, 109–15, 126, 128–30, 140 + Suffolk’s advance to, I, 128, 135, 208, 245 + _See also_ Suffolk, the Duke of, at Lincoln + reference, I, 79, 101, 103–4, 106, 109, 113, 119, 122, 164, 166, + 274, 293, 301, 314, 320; II, 32, 102, 154 + + Lincoln, John, I, 101 + + Lincolnshire + its character, I, 89 + condition of, after the rising, I, 135, 164–5, 293; II, 84, 149, + 151, 153, 197, 220, 223 + the King’s lieutenant there. _See_ Suffolk, the Duke of + opposition to the New Learning in, I, 67, 93–4, 96 + monastic debts in, I, 320 + the royal army in. _See_ Army, the Royal, in Lincs. + a centre of sedition, I, 78, 80 + the false Princess Mary in, I, 87 + the subsidy men, I, 192 + reference, I, 18, 21, 50, 98, 131, 149, 151, 155, 223, 234, 247, + 283, 287, 326; II, 26, 75, 80, 107, 214–5, 266 + + Lincolnshire rebellion + accounts of, on the continent, I, 132–3, 325, 335, 336, 338 + its characteristics, I, 90–1, 123 + the commons and the gentlemen, I, 91, 97–8, 100, 104, 114–5, 123–7, + 138–40, 142; II, 148–51 + Lord Darcy’s opinion of. _See_ Darcy, Lord, and the Lincs. rebellion + Demands of the rebels. _See_ Demands of the rebels of Lincs. + executions, I, 79; II, 45, 94, 108, 148–9, 150–4, 158, 168, 197, + 213, 220 + execution of the rebels delayed, I, 269, 281, 319; II, 17, 148–51, + 189 + causes of its failure, I, 85, 126, 129, 138–9, 166, 265, 334, 358, + 381 + finances, I, 106–7, 113, 118, 153 + examination of the gentlemen, I, 135, 140; II, 148–51 + the rebels at Lincoln. _See_ Lincoln city, the rebels in + monks in, I, 104–5, 107, 118, 126; II, 152, 155–7 + murders and plundering, I, 98, 101–2, 104, 111, 113, 115, 157; II, + 196 + numbers of the rebels, I, 97, 109, 111–2, 119, 125, 128, 133 + oath of the rebels. _See_ Oath of the Lincs. rebels + outbreak at Caistor, I, 96–7 + outbreak at Horncastle, I, 101 + outbreak at Louth, I, 92 + the pardon, I, 135, 273, 320; II, 84–5, 108, 150–1 + the parish priests in, I, 91–2, 94, 96, 102 + prisoners sent to London, I, 135; II, 148–9, 151 + prisoners pardoned, II, 152–3 + refugees, I, 306; II, 83, 93, 96, 129, 202 + royal letters to the rebels. _See_ Letters, Royal, and + Proclamations, Royal + spreading of the rebellion, I, 100–1, 104, 106, 111; II, 174 + and the commissioners of the Suppression, I, 95 + surrender and dispersal of the rebels, I, 129–30, 138, 162, 166, + 173, 228, 244, 288 + trials, II, 148, 151–4, 204 + connection with the Yorkshire rebellion, I, 24, 79–80, 95, 105–6, + 115, 129, 130, 139, 141, 142–3, 145, 146, 151–3, 156–7, 162–3, + 166, 172, 174, 177, 201, 207, 229–30, 244, 288, 353; II, 150–2 + reference, I, 154, 214–5, 279, 295, 377; II, 1, 40, 74, 166, 169, + 180, 205 + + Lindsey, I, 89 + + Line (Leven), the river, I, 35, 196, 223; II, 113 + + Lisle, Arthur Plantagenet, Lord, I, 335; II, 307, 323 + + Lisle, Lady, II, 19 + + Lisle, Sir Humphry, I, 31, 199, 201 + + Lisle, Sir William, I, 31 + + Littlebury, Thomas, I, 101, 107 + + Littleton, —, I, 264 + + Llandaff, the Bishop of. _See_ Holgate, Robert + + Lobley, —, II, 106, 203 + + Lockwood, —, II, 70 + + Loder, John, I, 42 + + Loder, William, I, 42 + + Lofthouse, the rector of. _See_ Franke, Thomas + + Lofthouse, the bailiff of, II, 161–2 + + Lollardy, II, 172–3 + + Londesborough, I, 62, 72, 82 + + London + Bethlehem without Bishopgate, I, 68 + Bishop of. _See_ Stokesley, John + the Black Friars nigh Ludgate, II, 193 + London Bridge, II, 195, 214, 216, 315 + Chancery Lane, II, 46 + the Charterhouse. _See_ Carthusians + Cheapside, I, 145, 328; II, 198 + Crossed Friars’ Churchyard, II, 195, 216 + Darcy detained in, I, 20–4, 189–90 + districts in. _See under their names, as_ Smithfield, Limehouse, + etc. + the Fleet prison, II, 200, 218, 261–2 + the gates, II, 214 + the Guild Hall, II, 153–4, 206 + the King’s Bench prison, II, 219 + Our Lady Friars in Fleet Street, II, 193 + news of the Lincs. rebellion reaches, I, 107, 133 + the Lord Mayor of, II, 325 + the Marshalsea, II, 163–5, 213 + Newgate, I, 62; II, 198 + Pardon Churchyard by the Charterhouse, II, 154, 185 + St Paul’s, I, 328. + _See also_ Paul’s Cross + the plague in, II, 27, 218 + preparations to suppress the rebellion, I, 108, 117, 134 + rebel proclamations in. _See_ Proclamations, Rebel, in London + Protestant feeling in, II, 292, 318 + its unprotected position, I, 125 + the Queen’s Head in Fleet Street, I, 328 + the Rolls, II, 46 + royal progress through, II, 25 + rumours in, I, 80, 122, 298; II, 19, 23, 25, 118, 165, 307 + news of the Yorkshire rebellion reaches, I, 173, 244 + reference, I, 25, 39, 50, 55–8, 69, 73, 99, 105, 118, 121, 123, 131, + 141, 145–6, 157, 190, 191, 193, 205, 224, 229, 234, 236, 274, + 278, 284, 293, 308, 310–1, 313, 326, 329, 340, 360, 366, 368, + 377; II, 4, 24, 30, 32–3, 39–40, 42, 45, 50–2, 54, 58, 76, 79–80, + 84, 95–6, 129–31, 135, 137–9, 142, 145, 163, 166, 171, 175–6, + 184, 187–8, 194, 197, 200, 202, 204, 206–7, 209, 213, 222, 230, + 233, 235, 242–5, 248, 251, 254, 257, 261, 265, 277, 279, 291, + 304, 309, 321, 324–5 + + Longbottom, William, II, 154 + + Longland, John, Bishop of Lincoln, I, 67, 93, 98, 101, 111, 113, 114, + 133; II, 40. + _See also_ Demands of the rebels + + Lonsdale, I, 317; II, 129 + + Lordington, II, 289, 305–6 + + Louth + Church, I, 79, 92 + commissary’s court at, I, 91–2 + the Corn Hill, I, 93 + the High Cross, I, 94, 96 + the Tollbooth, I, 126, 135 + the vicar of. _See_ Kendale, Thomas + reference, I, 79, 91, 95–107, 111, 124, 128, 135, 136, 153, 326; II, + 40, 126, 149–50, 152–4 + + Louthesk, I, 79, 98 + + Louth Park, II, 106 + Abbey, I, 92–3, 112; II, 153 + + Louvain, II, 283, 287 + + Lovell, Sir Francis, I, 122 + + Lovell’s rebellion, I, 21 + + Low Countries. _See_ Netherlands, the + + Lownde, Thomas, II, 47, 59, 63 + + Lowrey, John, II, 63 + + Lowther, I, 221 + + Lowther, Sir John, I, 221–3; II, 116, 245–6, 249 + + Loyalists, I, 155, 157, 159, 169–70, 180, 183, 196, 198–201, 206, 211, + 223, 225, 280, 282, 287, 293–4, 297, 299; II, 92, 183 + + Luis of Portugal, I, 325; II, 299 + + Luke, Sir Walter, II, 151 + + Lumley Castle, I, 204 + + Lumley, family of, I, 36, 83 + + Lumley, George, I, 204–5, 232–3; II, 66–72, 77, 80, 87, 135, 159, 185, + 197–200, 203, 212, 216 + + Lumley, Jane, wife of George, I, 205; II, 66, 200 + + Lumley, John, I, 197, 199 + + Lumley, John, Lord, I, 182, 204–6, 232, 237, 238, 252, 262, 265, + 344–5; II, 13, 16, 96, 159–62, 185, 199–200 + + Lupton, Dr, I, 244 + + Luther, Martin, I, 346, 353 + + Lutherans, I, 72 + + Lutton, —, II, 131–2 + + Lygerd, —, I, 157 + + Lynn, I, 327 + + Lynney, Randolph, vicar of Blackburn, II, 147–8, 189 + + Lynton, II, 43 + + Lythe, I, 151; II, 69, 71, 96, 184, 211, 213 + + + Mackerell, Matthew, Abbot of Barlings, I, 107, 111, 114, 116; II, + 149–51, 153–6 + + Madeleine (Magdalen), daughter of Francis I, I, 333–4, 340; II, 240, + 242–3, 253–4, 266–7 + + Madeson, Sir Edward, I, 96–9, 107, 118 + + Madowell, John, II, 167 + + Magna Carta, I, 360, 387 + + Magnus, Thomas, Archdeacon of the, East Riding, I, 72, 143, 150, 170, + 185–6, 227, 292, 302; II, 33, 138, 260 + + Maidstone, II, 168 + + Maitland, F. W. ‘English Law and the Renaissance’, I, 367–8; II, 182 + ‘Year Books of Edward II’, I, 36–7 + + Mallory, —, I, 345 + + Mallory, Sir William, I, 59, 212, 262, 345; II, 78 + + Maltby, Simon, I, 91 + + Malton, I, 40, 163, 231, 388 + Priory, I, 233; II, 58–9 + the Prior of. _See_ Todde, William + + Maltravers, Lord, II, 193 + + Manby, Thomas, I, 95, 165 + + Manchester, II, 142 + College, I, 213 + + Manne, John, I, 327 + + Manser, Edward, I, 345 + + Manser, Henry, II, 174 + + Mansfield, I, 108, 116 + + Mansfield, —, II, 133 + + Marches, Council of the. _See_ Borders, Council of the Marches + + Marck, Erard de la, Bishop of Liége, II, 283, 295, 326 + + Margaret, Queen-Dowager of Scotland, II, 250 + + Markby Priory, I, 95 + + Markenfield, family of, I, 212, 262 + + Market Rasen, I, 107, 110 + + Marney, Henry, Lord, I, 276; II, 1 + + Marshall, William, I, 324, 346 + + Marshall, —, clerk of Beswick, II, 65, 266 + + Marshall, Dr Cuthbert, Archdeacon of Nottingham, I, 382–3, 385–6 + + Marshall, Dr, II, 256 + + Marshall, Simon, II, 266 + + Marshland, I, 141–2, 148–50, 155–6, 168–9, 282, 293, 299, 318, 323; + II, 9, 27 + + Marston _alias_ Heyton Wansdale, I, 58 + + Marton Priory, I, 286 + + Mary, afterwards Queen + and Charles V, I, 325, 331, 333; II, 299 + danger of her position, I, 22–5 + her friends, I, 21, 25–6; II, 311, 320, 325 + her governess, I, 14 + her proposed flight from Greenwich, I, 23 + impersonated, I, 87 + question of her legitimacy, I, 1, 10, 21, 325, 331, 356, 363; II, + 245 + proposals for her marriage, I, 15, 17, 317, 324–5, 331, 337, 340; + II, 267, 294, 299, 319, 323–4 + the Pilgrims support her claims, I, 264, 318, 331, 339, 355–6, 383; + II, 14, 277 + her popularity, I, 1, 356–7 + reconciled to her father, I, 1, 26, 108 + her reign, I, 81; II, 325, 327 + reference, I, 27, 335; II, 25 + + Mary of Guise, II, 298 + + Mary of Hungary, Regent of the Netherlands, I, 133–4, 310, 335–6, 339; + II, 282–3 + + Masham, II, 266 + + Mashamshire, I, 201–3, 208, 239, 252, 262, 369 + + Master of the Rolls. _See_ Hales, Christopher + + Maston, I, 82; II, 132 + + Maunsell, Thomas, vicar of Brayton, I, 170, 180, 184–6, 188–90, 261, + 273, 297; II, 92 + + Maunsell, William, I, 180, 297; II, 84 + + Maxwell, Lord, II, 246–7 + + Maydland, Dr, I, 82 + + Meat, act regulating the price of, I, 13 + + Melanchthon, Philip, I, 346 + + Melling, the constable of, II, 113 + + Melmerby, the parson of, I, 222 + + Melton, Nicholas. _See_ Captain Cobbler + + Merlay, Thomas, I, 205 + + Merlin, I, 81, 83–6, 209; II, 244 + + Merriman, R. B. ‘Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell’, II, 296 + + Metcalf, Sir James, I, 36, 208 + + Metham, Sir Thomas, I, 149, 151 + + Metham, young, I, 148–9, 157–9, 181, 185, 345 + + Meux, I, 388 + + Mewtas, Peter, II, 32, 285, 294 + + Middleham, I, 201, 208; II, 28, 34, 105, 184 + + Middleham Moor, II, 108 + + Middleton, Lancs., I, 217 + + Middleton, —, I, 345 + + Middleton, —, yeoman, and his wife, I, 236 + + Middleton, Edward, I, 203; II, 38, 107–8, 110, 203, 214, 266 + + Middleton, John, I, 217 + + Middlewood, Roger, II, 87–8, 117 + + Middlewood, William, II, 87 + + Miffin, Philip, I, 155 + + Milan, Christina, Dowager-Duchess of, II, 298 + + Milan, the Duchy of, II, 299 + + Milburn, I, 371 + + Milburn, the family of, II, 238 + + Milburn, Christopher, II, 230–1 + + Milburn, David, II, 230–1 + + Milburn, Humphry, II, 238 + + Mileham, Nicholas, sub-prior of Walsingham, II, 175, 179 + + Miller, Thomas, Lancaster Herald, I, 128–30, 134, 166, 172, 228–30, + 233, 240, 249, 252, 256, 259, 346, 379–80; II, 10, 17, 28, 30, 40, + 44, 61, 83, 134, 300–1, 327 + + Millthrop Hall, I, 237 + + Milner, Sir John, I, 152 + + Milnthorpe, the bailiff of, II, 144 + + Milsent, John, I, 95, 126, 135, 165 + + ‘Mirror for Magistrates’, I, 85 + + Missenden, Sir Thomas, I, 97 + + Moigne, Thomas, I, 36, 55, 90, 98–100, 106, 110, 126–7, 140–1; II, + 150–2 + + Moke, William, II, 215, 217–8 + + Monasteries + capacities for monks, I, 92, 116, 218; II, 125, 145 + proposed crown rent charge from their lands, I, 352, 374–5 + and the Statute of First Fruits, I, 351 + grants of monastic lands, I, 28, 51, 95, 162, 190, 193, 280, 332, + 349; II, 138–9, 219, 301–2 + and Henry VIII. _See_ Henry VIII, his ecclesiastical policy + Queen Jane pleads for them, I, 108 + not restored by the Lincs. rebels, I, 112, 153 + restored by the Pilgrims, I, 112, 162, 178–9, 213, 218, 244, 274, + 317; II, 17, 20–1, 24, 39, 85–6, 109, 111, 129, 212 + and the Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 208, 218–9, 222, 225, 232–3, 283, + 287; II, 38–40, 121, 129, 145–6, 152, 154–7, 212–4 + their popularity, I, 348–51 + prophecies in. _See_ Prophecies + the rebels demand their restoration. _See_ Demands of the rebels + draft act for their reorganisation, I, 375 + suppressed, receivers of their goods, I, 278; II, 20 + refounding of, after suppression, I, 193; II, 25–6 + opinions of the suppression in, I, 74–6; II, 107, 157, 166, 175 + suppression or surrender of the greater, II, 121–2, 138–9, 142, + 144–7, 153, 155, 166 + general suppression of, II, 299, 301–2, 329 + and their tenants, II, 156, 173, 213 + + Monketon, Anne, I, 50 + + Monketon, William, I, 50, 148–9, 181; II, 32–3, 78 + + Monmouth’s Rebellion, II, 120 + + Montague, Henry Pole, Lord + his arrest, II, 310, 315 + his character and opinions, I, 361; II, 217, 286, 292–4, 303 + his danger, I, 15; II, 275–7, 295 + evidence against, II, 310–2, 321 + his execution, II, 286, 315, 326–7 + his correspondence with Exeter. _See_ Exeter, the Marquis of, his + friends + his family and connections, I, 14–5, 22 + his proposed flight from England, II, 278, 286, 295, 310, 316 + his friends, II, 290–2, 313 + his papers, II, 305–6, 315, 317, 319 + message from Cardinal Pole, II, 285–6, 294, 303 + and Sir Geoffrey Pole’s arrest, II, 306 + his trial, II, 314, 318 + reference, I, 17, 330; II, 289, 296, 304, 307 + + Montague, Jane, Lady, I, 14 + + Monteagle, Thomas Stanley, Lord, I, 53, 216, 218, 319; II, 119 + + Montmorency, Anne de, Constable of France, II, 310, 319 + + Monubent, I, 210, 219 + + Monyhouse, II, 69 + + Moors, the, I, 19 + + Mordaunt, Lord, II, 193 + + More, Sir Thomas, I, 11, 23, 63, 65, 68–9, 271, 354, 358; II, 136, + 182, 192, 287, 292 + + Moreton, John, I, 285 + + Morland, William, _alias_ Burobe, I, 92–4, 96–8, 100–4, 124, 126, 128, + 138, 288, 336; II, 106, 153 + + Morley, Lord, II, 193 + + Morpeth, II, 28, 81, 233 + + Morris, John, ‘The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers’, I, 59 + + Mortlake, I, 303 + + Moryson, Richard, ‘An Invective against Treason’, II, 307, 309, 314–5, + 321–2 + + Mountgrace Priory, I, 43, 233 + + Mountjoy, William Blount, Lord, II, 193 + + Mousehold Heath, II, 176 + + Moy, Charles de, vice-admiral of France, II, 254, 256 + + Mulgrave, I, 41, 205–6; II, 59, 87 + + Muncaster, II, 112 + + Musgrave, family of, II, 115 + + Musgrave, Cuthbert, II, 116 + + Musgrave, Sir Edward, I, 222 + + Musgrave, Nicholas, I, 221, 345; II, 106, 111–3, 266 + + Musgrave, Sir William, II, 6, 9, 42 + + Muskham, I, 319 + + Mustone. _See_ Maston + + Mustone, the vicar of. _See_ Dobsone, John + + + Napoleon, I, 17; II, 298 + + Nassau, the Count of, I, 108 + + Navy, the English, II, 95, 242–3, 245, 247 + + Naworth Castle, I, 224, 250 + + Neales Ynge, I, 209 + + Neat geld, I, 370–2; II, 44 + + Nesfield, John, I, 72 + + Nethe Abbey, II, 143 + + Netherdale, I, 52, 262, 369 + + Netherlands, the, I, 27, 335–6; II, 281, 322 + the Regent of. _See_ Mary of Hungary + + Nettleham (Netlam), II, 154 + + Neville (Nevill), Edith, Lady, I, 18; II, 194 + + Neville, Sir Edward, II, 289–90, 310, 312, 314–5, 320 + + Neville, Henry, Lord, I, 204–5, 231, 235, 237, 238, 252, 262, 345; II, + 13, 16, 96 + + Neville, Sir John, II, 255 + + Neville (Nevill), Margaret, II, 185 + + Neville (Nevill), Marmaduke, I, 262, 312, 345; II, 20, 24, 53 + + Neville (Nevill), Mary, II, 185 + + Neville (Nevill), Sir Robert, I, 186, 238, 345 + + Neville (Nevill), Thomas, II, 185, 217 + + Neville, William, II, 87–8 + + New, Roger, II, 153 + + Newark, I, 63, 245, 249, 251, 293–4, 296, 311, 319–20; II, 5, 8, 107 + Castle, I, 250, 282 + the vicar of, II, 301 + + Newbald, I, 151; II, 64 + + Newborough, I, 146; II, 60, 133 + + Newburgh Priory, I, 233 + + Newbury, I, 51 + + Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I, 31, 36, 59, 63, 65, 72, 183, 185, 192, 196, + 204–7, 225, 239, 288, 336; II, 21, 28, 30, 38–9, 94–5, 102, 104, + 122, 124, 126, 133, 233–4, 237–8, 246, 256, 262, 269–70, 275 + + Newdyke, Richard, I, 145 + + New Learning, the + and the ten articles of religion, I, 10 + bishops inclined to, I, 178, 280, 324, 348, 353–4 + in East Anglia, II, 173, 177 + in Germany, II, 299 + the King’s persecution of, I, 324, 374, 379; II, 13, 166, 180, + 299–300 + literature, I, 24, 67, 93, 353 + in the monasteries, I, 65, 75; II, 166 + its progress, I, 24, 93; II, 168, 177, 197, 199, 292, 301, 318 + the rebels demand its suppression. _See_ Demands of the rebels + its unpopularity, I, 59, 66, 68, 71, 82, 271, 348, 354; II, 164–9, + 196, 199, 292, 302–3, 305, 316, 319 + reference, I, 64, 84, 86; II, 259 + + Newminster Abbey, II, 121–2 + + Newstead, I, 200 + + Newton, William, I, 43 + + Nice, II, 299, 302 + + Nicholas, —, I, 93, 98 + + Nicholson, William, II, 49, 62, 64, 66, 82 + + Nidd, the river, I, 231 + + Nidderdale, I, 201, 208 + + Nieuport, II, 285 + + Noble, Thomas, I, 96 + + Norfolk county, I, 78, 107, 120, 241, 327–8; II, 26, 99, 173–4, 178 + + Norfolk rebellion of, 1549 I, 364 + + Norfolk, Thomas Howard, second Duke of, formerly Earl of Surrey, I, + 272, 276; II, 154 + + Norfolk, Thomas Howard, third Duke of, formerly Lord Admiral + and Robert Aske. _See_ Aske, Robert, and the Duke of Norfolk + and the Borders, II, 103, 124, 126, 133–4, 230–9, 248, 257, 261–4, + 268–70, 275–6 + his plan of campaign, I, 249 + plot to capture, II, 60–1, 97, 107, 111, 176 + his character, I, 4–5, 14 + and the commons’ rising, II, 114–24, 128 + his council, II, 8, 16, 52, 99, 126, 229, 256, 271 + his correspondence with the Privy Council. _See_ Council, the + King’s, correspondence with Norfolk + his correspondence with Cromwell. _See_ Cromwell, Thomas, his + correspondence with Norfolk + his rivalry with Cromwell, I, 5, 107, 109, 120, 265–6, 358; II, 4, + 14, 37, 46, 221–2, 224, 261 + and Darcy. _See_ Darcy, Thomas, Lord, and the Duke of Norfolk + suppresses disturbances in Norfolk, I, 78, 120–1; II, 174 + at the second conference at Doncaster. _See_ Pilgrimage of Grace, + the second appointment at Doncaster + and Sir Ralph Evers, II, 183–4 + his family, I, 260; II, 23, 250 + his finances, I, 244, 246–7; II, 9, 250 + at the Battle of Flodden, I, 19, 265, 272 + hated in the north, II, 254, 301 + and the King, I, 20, 107, 120, 130, 241–3, 245–7, 249, 251, 259–60, + 266–8, 270, 274, 276, 278, 279, 290, 329–30; II, 4–11, 15–6, 19, + 22–4, 26, 31, 36, 50, 95, 99, 101–3, 109, 111, 114, 117–8, 120–4, + 126–7, 131, 133–5, 138–9, 186, 194, 211, 229, 239, 250–1, 253, + 259–60, 264–5, 267, 269–70, 273 + his mission to the north, II, 9, 11, 18, 21, 27–32, 44–46, 48–53, + 55, 60, 67, 71, 73, 76, 80–2, 92–7, chap. xviii, pp. 99 _et + seq._, 141, 158, 160, 187–8, 202, 206, 209, 215, 244, 246, 253, + 254–6, 259, 270, 272 + his first journey north, I, 244–5, 247, 249–51 + his opinion of northern gentlemen, I, 18, 37, 46; II, 236, 239, 269 + his designs on the Percy inheritance, II, 125, 234–7, 239–40, 251–3, + 260, 264–5, 274 + his opinion of the Pilgrims’ army, I, 257, 269 + collects evidence against the Pilgrims, II, 85, 124–5, 130–1, 194, + 199–201, 210–1, 218–9 + his sympathy with the Pilgrims, I, 266–7, 279, 287, 327, 329–31, + 338–9; II, 15, 111 + sent to treat with the Pilgrims, I, 253–4, 256–9, 264–5, 309, 311, + 315, 317, 321–3, 330–1, 342, 344–5, 377, 381, 385; II, 2, 3, 7, + 10, 12 + his policy, I, 4–5, 260, 266–8 + his popularity, I, 19, 250–1, 258, 265, 271, 315; II, 45–6, 217–8 + his promise to keep no terms with the rebels, I, 259–60; II, 5, 15 + reports of his agents, I, 318; II, 3, 123 + rumour of his arrest. _See_ Rumour, of the Duke of Norfolk’s arrest + his troops, I, 118–9, 133, 241–2, 244–5, 248, 257, 268–9 + superseded in the command of the royal army, I, 120–1, 241 + reappointed to command the royal army, I, 173, 241 + and Scottish affairs, II, 238, 241, 247–50, 266, 268 + and the Earl of Shrewsbury. _See_ Shrewsbury, the Earl of, and the + Duke of Norfolk + his joint commission with Shrewsbury, I, 173, 215, 243, 245; II, 8, + 9, 29 + and the Duke of Suffolk, I, 241–2, 247, 268, 321; II, 8, 9, 11, 17, + 22 + his trial, II, 186 + holds trials, II, 109–111, 118–122, 125–6, 129, 131–7, 140, 143, + 151, 164, 257–8, 262 + at York. _See_ York city, the Duke of Norfolk at + reference, I, 38, 204, 218, 238, 262, 264, 294, 300, 302, 320, 326; + II, 77–9, 84, 98, 108, 113, 144, 151, 163, 182, 193, 197, 277, + 289, 305 + + Norham Castle, I, 203–4, 240; II, 33, 78 + + Norman, Robert, I, 92 + + Northallerton, I, 388; II, 78, 180 + + Northamptonshire, I, 113 + + North Cave, I, 152 + + North Charlton, I, 200 + + North Tynedale. _See_ Tynedale, North + + Northumberland county + escapes taxation, I, 192 + gentlemen of, II, 228, 230–1, 235, 239 + pardon proclaimed in, II, 28 + the rising in, I, 115, 118, 122, 143, 192–201; II, 41 + the truce proclaimed in, I, 299 + unrest there after the rebellion, II, 61, 81, 105, 120, 122, 203, + 230–3, 263 + reference, I, 29, 150, 205, 345, 364; II, 80, 103, 234, 238, 244, + 272 + + Northumberland, the Earls of. _See_ Percy, family of + + Northumberland, the first Earl of, I, 15 + + Northumberland, the fifth Earl of, I, 31, 33, 34, 46–7, 232 + + Northumberland, the seventh Earl of, II, 331. + _See also_ Percy, Sir Thomas, his children + + Northumberland, Henry Percy, sixth Earl of, I, 23, 29–34, 41, 45, + 54–5, 57, 73, 149–50, 184, 194, 197–9, 230, 232, 235, 246, 283–6; + II, 9, 33, 103, 125, 131, 228, 235, 237, 239, 250–2, 265 + Act assuring his lands to the King, I, 33, 199, 264; II, 125, 183, + 235 + + Northumberland, Katherine, dowager countess of, I, 31, 34, 150, 230–1; + II, 67, 81, 85, 203, 215, 252, 273 + + Northumberland, Mary, Countess of, I, 32, 285 + + Norton, family of, I, 212, 238, 262 + + Norton, John, I, 52, 209, 211, 345–6; II, 43 + + Norton, Richard, I, 209, 345 + + Norton, Thomas, I, 209 + + Norton, Cheshire, the Abbot of, I, 213–4, 226 + + Norton Conyers, I, 52, 209 + + Norway, I, 83, 86 + + Norwich, I, 65, 78, 327; II, 99, 175, 177–9 + Castle, II, 176 + + Nottingham county, I, 234; II, 39 + + Nottingham town, I, 109, 113, 118–9, 121–2, 128, 130–1, 148, 168, 170, + 172–4, 185, 249, 259, 266, 294–6, 311, 320, 322, 360; II, 3, 8, 59, + 205 + Castle, I, 282 + the Archdeacon of. _See_ Marshall, Dr Cuthbert + + Nunney (Nonye), I, 87–8; II, 172 + + Nun of Kent, Elizabeth Barton, the, II, 313 + + Nuttles, I, 155 + + + Oath + of allegiance to the King, I, 68, 147, 342; II, 2, 9, 99–101, 109, + 122, 127, 141–2, 149, 231–3 + devised by Sir Francis Bigod, II, 60, 66, 70, 73, 78 + of the Cornish rebels, II, 171 + of the rebels at Kendal, I, 216 + of the Lincs. rebels, I, 93–5, 97, 99, 105, 107, 109, 111, 124, 141, + 181, 182, 198, 289; II, 87 + the obligation of contradictory oaths, I, 304, 342, 387 + of the Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 139, 181–4, 190, 200, 202, 209–10, + 216–9, 222, 227–9, 231, 234, 252, 263, 298, 310, 319, 321, 328, + 342; II, 41, 47, 92, 101, 112–3, 164, 170, 174, 183, 190, 202 + of canonical obedience to the Pope, I, 342 + of the Richmondshire rebels, II, 80 + acknowledging the King’s supremacy, I, 343; II, 295, 312 + a treasonable, taken in the Yorkshire dales, I, 79, 207 + of the Yorkshire rebels, I, 145, 147, 150, 152, 154, 163–4, 180, + 197, 199, 204–5 + + Observant Friars. _See_ Friars, Observant + + Ogle, family of, II, 228, 231 + + Ogle, Lewis, I, 197 + + Ogle, Robert, Lord, I, 32, 197, 285; II, 81 + + Oldfelden, John, II, 169 + + Oldfelden, Philip, II, 169 + + Oldfelden, Richard, II, 169–70 + + Ombler, William, I, 155, 160–1, 163, 273 + + Order of the Garter, II, 195, 229 + + Orders. _See_ Proclamations, Royal + + Orleans, the Duke of, I, 325, 331, 340 + + Ormsby, I, 95 + + Ortiz, Dr Pedro, I, 336 + + Osborne, Harry, I, 287–8 + + Oseney, the Abbot of, II, 168 + + Osgodby, II, 72 + + Otterburn, II, 230 + + Otterburn, —, II, 110 + + Otterburn, Adam, II, 247 + + Otterburn, James, priest of Rosedale, II, 160 + + Oughtred, Sir Robert, I, 186, 379 + + Ouse, the river, I, 130, 134, 141–2, 148–9, 156, 170, 172, 174, 231, + 282 + + Ovingham, the master of, I, 193–4 + + Oxford city, II, 170 + the vicar of St Peter’s in the East. _See_ Serls, — + + Oxford county, I, 67; II, 170 + + Oxford, John de Vere, 15th Earl of, I, 120–1, 276, 290; II, 25, 193 + + Oxford University, I, 43; II, 168–70 + Oriel College, II, 169 + + Oxneyfield, I, 202–3 + + + Page, Sir Richard, I, 259 + + Palmer, Sir Thomas, II, 284 + + Palmes, —, I, 345 + + Palmes, Dr George, rector of Sutton-upon-Derwent, I, 382, 384 + + Papal Dispensations declared void by Act of Parliament, I, 8 + + Pardon + persons excepted from, I, 273; II, 9, 12, 22, 27, 126, 260, 266 + the general I, 79; II, 7, 11, 15–21, 23, 27–31, 35, 37, 42, 48, + 52–4, 73, 77–8, 82, 100, 106, 120, 127–8, 131, 141, 147, 152, + 158, 187–8, 190, 191, 198, 200–2, 204, 206, 209, 211–2, 217–8, + 224, 250, 260, 266, 300 + dissatisfaction caused by the general, II, 30–1, 45, 51, 59–60, 68, + 76, 82, 106, 114, 211 + the final, II, 328 + the Lincs. rebels petition for, I, 98–9, 127. + _See also_ Demands of the rebels, of Lincs. + proposed, to the Lincs. rebels, I, 129, 135 + to Marshland and Holderness, II, 9 + by act of parliament, I, 318, 361. + _See also_ Demands of the rebels, of Yorks. + a limited, offered to the Pilgrims, I, 273, 295; II, 2, 6–7, 12, 126 + sale of, I, 366, 373; II, 146 + + Paris, I, 339, 357; II, 240, 242, 284–5 + + Parishe, —, II, 83, 266 + + Parker, Edmund, II, 188 + + Parker, George, I, 95, 126 + + Parkyns, John, II, 168 + + Parliament + complaints of abuses in, I, 3, 28, 331, 339, 358–61; II, 330 + of December 1529 to March 1536, I, 3, 11, 20, 24–5, 264 + of June to July 1536, I, 1, 3, 8, 25 + of 1539, II, 323–4 + acts of. _See under separate heads as_ Treason, Act of + its composition, I, 3, 358; II, 31, 45 + freedom of access to, I, 318 + freedom of speech in, I, 361; II, 26 + the King relies on its authority, I, 331, 358; II, 14 + confirms the Lancastrian title to the crown, I, 362 + the ancient customs of the House of Lords, I, 360 + petition of the Commons 1532, I, 6 + the Pilgrims appeal to its authority, I, 355, 360, 374; II, 14 + places not represented in, I, 355, 359, 388; II, 15 + proposed, after the rebellion, I, 360–1, 375; II, 16, 18–24, 26, 27, + 31, 37, 45, 48–9, 51, 55, 60, 68, 71–3, 79, 86, 100, 102–3, 130, + 168, 187–8, 198, 206, 209–10, 280 + social legislation, I, 12 + the Speaker, I, 358 + modification of the Treason Act, I, 11 + reference, I, 2, 19, 98, 372, 385 + + Parr, Sir William, I, 122–3, 128, 320; II, 53, 151, 153–4, 220–2 + + Parry, Thomas, I, 203 + + Paslew, John, Abbot of Whalley, II, 142–5, 147, 169, 189 + + Pater, William, I, 299 + + Paul III, Pope (the Bishop of Rome) + his authority in England denied, I, 2, 7, 10, 65, 67–8, 71, 304, + 343, 385; II, 35, 41, 165 + letters of censure on Henry VIII, I, 337; II, 241–2, 287–8, 298 + and his English supporters, I, 8, 64–9, 72, 75, 82, 258, 287, 310, + 331, 336, 338–40, 383–4; II, 30, 120, 127, 219, 277, 280, 287, + 312, 321, 330–1 + his relations with France, I, 334; II, 281 + tries to reconcile Francis I and Charles V, I, 2, 3, 335, 338; II, + 242, 245, 298 + possible reconciliation with Henry VIII, I, 1; II, 278 + his Bull of Interdict against Henry VIII, I, 11, 334, 339, 341; II, + 298–9 + and James V of Scotland, II, 240–2, 256 + at the meeting at Nice, II, 298–9 + and Cardinal Pole, II, 279, 283, 286, 302 + sermons against his usurped power. _See_ Sermons, loyal + reference, II, 244, 249, 303, 326 + + Paul’s Cross, I, 274, 324, 374; II, 25, 291, 305 + + Paul’s Wharf, II, 318 + + Paulet, —, II, 172 + + Paulet, Sir William, I, 247, 276, 290; II, 118, 309, 324 + + Pavia, the battle of, I, 364 + + Pawston (Fawston?), II, 238 + + Payne, Hugh, II, 165 + + Peacock, Anthony, II, 110–1, 180 + + Pecock, John, I, 42 + + Pennell, Harry, I, 96 + + Penrith, I, 70, 79, 221–4, 226, 312, 345, 370; II, 28, 120–3 + the Captains’ Mass, I, 223 + chapel, I, 222 + Fell, I, 221 + + Percebay, William, I, 230–1 + + Percy, family of, I, 31, 84, 115, 192; II, 43, 114, 183, 227, 232, + 252, 273–4 + + Percy, Agnes, wife of Sir William, I, 45 + + Percy, Eleanor, wife of Sir Thomas, I, 33; II, 124–5 + + Percy, Henry. _See_ Percy, Sir Thomas, his children + + Percy, Sir Ingram, I, 32–3, 150, 196, 198–201, 220, 224, 284–5, 299, + 306; II, 10, 41–2, 104–5, 158, 202, 219, 228, 230, 273 + + Percy, Thomas. _See_ Percy, Sir Thomas, his children + + Percy, Sir Thomas + his arrest, II, 104–5, 130, 158, 202, 230 + and Robert Aske, I, 231, 284–5 + his character, I, 34 + and Bigod’s insurrection, II, 61, 67, 71, 80–1, 86–7, 203 + captured by the Pilgrims, I, 163, 230–1; II, 163 + his feud with the Carnabys, I, 33, 199–200; II, 41, 124, 231–2 + his children, I, 33; II, 252, 273–4 + his petition to Cromwell, I, 33 + disinherited, I, 33–4, 122, 232, 284 + evidence against, II, 86, 124, 202–3 + his execution, II, 216, 228 + and little John Heron, I, 195; II, 41–2, 232, 263 + his imprisonment, II, 125, 219 + his alleged letter to Lincs., II, 84 + and the monasteries, I, 233 + his quarrels with the Earl of Northumberland, I, 32–3, 283–4 + his conduct in Northumberland, I, 115, 299; II, 41–2 + his company of Pilgrims, I, 230–1, 239, 251, 262 + his popularity, I, 34, 232; II, 71, 203 + his connection with the Richmondshire rising, II, 203, 214 + and the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication, II, 83–6, 98, 124, 127, 142, + 201, 203, 212 + his trial, II, 135, 198, 204 + his entry into York, I, 231–2, 235 + reference, I, 122, 149, 198, 238, 285, 345; II, 10 + + Percy, Sir William, I, 45–8 + + Percy, William, Lord, II, 83 + + Perith, Edward, I, 221 + + Peter, —, I, 91 + + Peter, St, I, 383 + + Peterborough, I, 112 + + Petitions of the rebels. _See_ Demands of the rebels + + Philips, —, I, 170; II, 205 + + Philips, Thomas, II, 321, 324–5 + + Phillips, Henry, II, 283 + + Picardy, I, 339 + + Pickburn, I, 256, 260 + + Pickering, I, 388 + + Pickering Lythe. _See_ Lythe + + Pickering, Friar John, I, 280–1, 307, 378, 382–3, 385–6, 388; II, + 61–2, 121, 125, 130, 183, 211–4 + + Pickering, John, priest, II, 163–4, 211, 213 + + Piercebridge, I, 208 + + Pilgrimage of Grace + its political antecedents, I, chap. i, pp. 1–13, 73–4, 341–2 + badge of the Five Wounds. _See_ Badge, the Five Wounds of Christ + the mission of Bowes and Ellerker. _See_ Bowes, Robert, his mission + to the King + its captain. _See_ Aske, Robert + reports of, on the continent, I, 330, 333–6, 338–40; II, 217, 241, + 280 + discipline, I, 148, 160–2, 176, 178, 183, 221, 229–30, 312–3 + its dual character, I, 208, 225–6, 283, 370; II, 96, 100, 213, chap. + xxiv, pp. 329 _et seq._ + the advance to the Don, I, 238–9, 251–62 + the first appointment at Doncaster. _See_ Truce of Doncaster + the second appointment at Doncaster, I, 287, 313, 315, 317–8, 321, + 332, 342, 346, 359, 373, 376–7; II, chap. xv, pp. 1–23, 24–5, 27, + 31–4, 38–9, 42–3, 46, 52, 54–5, 73, + 79, 84, 95, 97–8, 111, 129, 141, 147, 158, 164, 166, 189, 223, 252 + its early stages. _See under_ Yorkshire rebellion + executions, II, 195, 214–7, 220–1, 225, 226, 278, 282, 286, 322 + prospects of success or failure, I, 253–4, 258, 279, 381; II, 55 + causes of its failure, II, 55–6, 292, 322, 329–333 + finances, I, 162, 183, 188, 206, 232–3, 267, 286, 288, 331; II, 44, + 209 + suspicion between gentlemen and commons, I, 252, 254, 265, 280, 303, + 341, 381–2; II, 16, 20, 31–3, 45–7, 51, 330, 333 + lists of grievances, I, 315, 332, 342, 345–7, 354, 357, 370–2 + siege and surrender of Hull. _See_ Hull + the Pilgrims’ attitude to the King, I, 253, 281, 305–6; II, 292, 329 + and the King’s intrigues. _See_ Henry VIII, his policy with the + Pilgrims + the King’s replies to the Pilgrims’ Demands. _See_ Henry VIII, his + replies to the Pilgrims + its leaders, I, 29, 36–7, 55, 254, 261–2, 271, 367–8, 373, 376; II, + 18, 55, 72, 90, 164, 271, 277, 322, 330, 333 + restoration of monasteries during. _See_ Monasteries restored by the + Pilgrims + proposed appeal to the Netherlands for help, I, 310; II, 190, 223 + means of communication between the hosts, I, 211, 288 + negotiations with Norfolk. _See_ Norfolk, the Duke of, sent to treat + with the Pilgrims + settlement of the north after, II, chap. xxi, pp. 226–276 + numbers, I, 70, 154, 157, 160, 173, 175, 180, 185, 191, 205, 212, + 217, 234, 237, 252, 261–2, 330–1, 336; II, 300, 332 + oath of the Pilgrims. _See_ Oath, of the Pilgrimage of Grace + opinion in the ranks, I, 264–5, 268, 290; II, 12, 19–20, 22, 24 + siege and surrender of Pontefract Castle, I, 184–90, 192; II, 92, + 129 + the musters at Pontefract, I, chap. x, pp. 227–40 + Council at Pontefract, I, 191, 312, 315, 317, 332, chap. xiv, pp. + 341–88; II, 7, 10, 20, 24, 57, 129–30, 185, 189, 213, 270 + plundering by the Pilgrims, I, 183–4, 204–5, 211, 261, 279, 283, + 287, 297, 300; II, 218, 256–8 + rhymes in praise of, I, 85, 213, 261, 280–1, 307, 349–50; II, + 169–70, 212–3 + the Pilgrims in touch with the royal army, I, 251, 255–6 + the Pilgrims demand safe-conducts. _See_ Henry VIII, the question of + safe-conducts + Scarborough Castle besieged, I, 212, 314 + the siege of Skipton Castle. _See_ Cumberland, the Earl of, his + defence of Skipton Castle + the alarm at Snaith, I, 296–8, 300–1 + spread of, I, 171, 230–1, chap. ix, pp. 192–226 + sympathy with, in the south I, 266–7, 305–6, 327, 329–30, 375; II, + 24, 26, 36, 59, 164–5, 167–9, 171, 174, 190, 223, 243–4, 292 + council of captains at Templehurst, I, 308–11 + trials, II, chap. xx, pp. 182–225 + the Pilgrims’ determination during the truce, I, 295–6, 344; II, 4, + 6 + preparations during the truce, I, 281–3, 286, 309–10, 313, 316–7, + 344 + the capture of Edward Waters’ ship, I, 314, 317, 322–3; II, 9, 17, + 57 + the advance to York, I, 154, 158, 164, 168–9, 171, 174–5, 178, 181–2 + the council at York, I, 293, 306, chap. xiii, pp. 308–40, 342, 354; + II, 57, 201 + + Pinchinthorp, I, 39 + + Pittington, I, 369 + + Place, —, I, 345 + + Pledges, the Border, II, 231, 233, 237–9, 248, 257, 262, 270, 274–5 + + Plumland, II, 112 + + Plummer, John, I, 66 + + Plumpton, —, I, 181, 345 + + Plymouth, I, 19 + + Poland, I, 15 + + Pole, family of, I, 14, 332–3, 338; II, 277–8, 299, 308, 329 + + Pole, Constance, wife of Sir Geoffrey, II, 305–6, 326 + + Pole, Sir Geoffrey, I, 22, 330, 332; II, 275–6, 278, 284–6, 289–96, + 302–12, 314–18, 323, 326–8 + + Pole, Henry, II, 306, 310, 323–5, 328 + + Pole, Reginald, Cardinal + approves of the ten articles of religion, I, 352 + attainted, II, 323 + his book ‘De Unitate Ecclesiastica’, I, 16–7, 337–9; II, 278–9, + 287–9, 302 + his cardinalate, I, 338, 340; II, 279 + and Charles V, I, 16–17 + delay in his ordination, I, 27, 337 + leaves England, I, 15 + communications with England, II, 283–6, 303–6, 311, 316–8 + his proposed mission to England, I, 331, 337–9; II, 241, 280, 282–3, + 287 + his family endangered by his conduct, I, 338; II, 275–8, 288–9, 295, + 312, 314, 318, 322, 326–7 + plot to kidnap, II, 282, 284–5, 293–4, 317 + papal legate, II, 279–83, 285–7, 289, 293, 302, 322 + his proposed marriage with Mary, I, 15, 17, 337; II, 294, 311, 324 + and Montague’s children, ii, 306, 323, 326–7 + at the meeting at Nice, II, 298–9, 302 + and the rebellion in England, I, 337; II, 286–7, 330 + at Rome, I, 336, 338; II, 277, 286–9 + spies in his household, II, 284 + at Venice, II, 302 + reference, I, 22, 330, 367; II, 278, 295, 308, 313 + + Pollard, A. F. ‘Henry VIII’, II, 334 + + Pollard, Richard, II, 139, 208 + + Pommeraye, Gilles de la (Pomeroy), I, 325 + + Pontefract Castle, I, 121, 143, 150–1, 167–8, 170, 173–4, 180–1, + 184–90, 208, 227–8, 235, 237, 244, 246, 250, 289, 291–2, 302, 309, + 344, 377–8; II, 52, 61, 89, 92–3, 109, 127–9, 131, 189–90, 200, + 205, 300–1 + + Pontefract, the council at, I, chap. xiv, pp. 341–388. + _See also_ Pilgrimage of Grace, the council at Pontefract + + Pontefract town, I, 144, 184, 211, 212, 227–40, 243–4, 250–4, 256, + 262, 269–70, 280, 283, 298, 300, 310, 327, 372; II, 7, 10, 12–3, + 16–7, 19–21, 54, 99, 101, 108–9, 129, 198, 300 + the parish church, All Hallows, I, 340, 379, 388; II, 12, 300 + the market cross, I, 229; II, 16, 19 + representation in parliament, I, 359, 388 + + Pontefract Priory, I, 184–5, 344, 346, 378, 382; II, 127 + the Prior of. _See_ Thwaites, James + + Pontefract, St Thomas’ Hill, I, 233, 237; II, 17 + + Pontefract, the honour of, I, 296; II, 92 + + Pope, the + general reference, I, 16, 45, 61, 82, 342–3, 347–8, 351, 356, 374, + 384; II, 36, 57, 177. + _See also_ Clement VII _and_ Paul III + + Porman, John, I, 98 + + Porter, Thomas, II, 43 + + Portington, Julian, I, 50 + + Portington, Thomas, I, 50, 97–9, 105, 151 + + Portugal, II, 299 + Don Luis of. _See_ Luis + + Potter Hanworth, I, 131 + + Powell, —, II, 285 + + Powes (Powys), Lord, II, 193 + + Praemunire, Statute of, I, 6, 385 + + Pratt, James, I, 70, 79 + + Preston in Lancs., I, 217–9; II, 113, 142, 144, 146 + + Preston in Holderness, I, 155; II, 49, 64 + + Priestman, —, II, 96 + + Priestman, John, II, 266 + + Priestman, William, II, 266 + + Privileged Districts, act abolishing, I, 8, 144, 355 + + Proctor, John, I, 52 + + Proctor, Robert, I, 93 + + Proclamations + Rebel + Aske’s first, I, 148; II, 163 + Aske’s second, I, 175, 182, 209, 227, 327 + summons to Beverley in Aske’s name, I, 145 + issued by Bigod, II, 78, 97–8 + against Bigod’s rising, II, 72–4, 102 + summons to Cleveland, I, 202 + in Cornwall, I, 327 + the terms of the second appointment at Doncaster, II, 48–9 + summons to Lancashire, I, 216, 217 + in Lincs., I, 96, 125 + in London, I, 327–9 + in Norfolk, I, 327–8 + in Northumberland, I, 199 + prohibited, II, 106 + rhyming, I, 305, 307; II, 96 + for a rising in Richmondshire, II, 97, 106, 108 + for a new rising, II, 51, 79–80, 93–4, 96–7, 102, 105, 198 + against spoiling, I, 160–1, 176, 178, 183, 204, 318; II, 69 + against unlawful assemblies, I, 318; II, 51 + in Westmorland, I, 220, 221, 370; II, 113–4 + in Worcester, I, 328 + royal, mandates, orders + after the commons’ rising, II, 119 + order concerning Holy Days, I, 9. + _See also_ Holidays + carried by Lancaster Herald to Pontefract, I, 229, 240, 249 + for the observance of Lent, II, 167–8 + sent to Lincoln, I, 122, 128, 129, 135, 172 + the King’s reply to the Lincs. rebels, I, 136–8, 142, 324, 328; + II, 1, 2, 149, 151 + the pardon to the Lincs. rebels. _See_ Lincs. rebellion, the + pardon + concerning the price of meat, I, 13 + a limited pardon proclaimed to the Pilgrims, I, 295 + affirming the general pardon, II, 106 + prepared for the Pilgrims, I, 273–4 + for preaching and bidding of beads, I, 7, 67 + against the Bishop of Rome, I, 7; II, 165 + Shrewsbury’s, sent into Yorkshire, I, 172, 173, 228 + order for declaring the Royal Supremacy, I, 71–2 + torn down, I, 70; II, 167 + against sturdy vagabonds, II, 259 + to suspend the Statute of Woollen Cloths, I, 108 + + Prophecies, I, 57, 73, 80–6, 326; II, 58, 146, 169, 171, 176, 243–5, + 289–90, 294–5 + + Prowde, John, II, 63, 66 + + Prudhoe Castle, I, 33, 230; II, 41, 85, 124 + + Pullen (Pulleyn), Robert, I, 221, 312, 345; II, 16, 44 + + Purgatory, I, 8, 9, 66, 71, 72, 266, 326, 383 + + Purveyance, II, 172 + + Py, John, I, 87 + + + Quarrendon, I, 311 + + Quinzine. _See_ Fifteenth + + Quondam Prior of Guisborough. _See_ Cockerell, James + + Quyntrell, —, II, 181 + + + Radwell, I, 326 + + Raffells, Robert, I, 145, 147 + + Ragland, Jerome, II, 310, 313 + + Raine, J. ‘Memorials of Hexham Priory’, II, 276 + + Rasen, I, 98, 100 + + Rasen Moor, I, 100 + + Rasen Wood, I, 106 + + Rasshall, Henry, II, 132–3 + + Rastell, John, I, 324, 346 + + Ratcliff, Sir Cuthbert, II, 232, 263, 275 + + Ratcliff, Roger, I, 269, 295, 306 + + Ratford, Thomas, parson of Snelland, I, 127; II, 153 + + Ravenspur, I, 388 + + Ravenstonedale, I, 81 + + Rawcliff, I, 298 + + Ray, Henry, Berwick pursuivant-at-arms, I, 219, 306; II, 217, 246–50, + 254–5 + + Raynes, Dr John, chancellor of the Bishop of Lincoln, I, 91, 101–2, + 104, 133, 202 + + Reading, I, 328–9 + + Rede, William, II, 169–70 + + Redman, —, I, 345 + + Reedsdale, I, 196, 198; II, 6, 41, 81, 120, 122, 228–33, 235, 238–9, + 248, 257, 262–4, 268–70 + keepers of. _See_ Fenwick. George, _and_ Heron, John, of Chipchase + + Reformation, the. _See_ England, the Reformation in + + Retford, I, 78 + + Reynton, Thomas, II, 170 + + Ribble, the river, I, 219 + + Ribblesdale, II, 43 + + Rice, John ap, II, 208 + + Richard III, I, 14, 84, 337 + + Richardin, Robert, II, 169 + + Richardson, Alexander, II, 145 + + Richardson, Cuthbert, II, 78 + + Riche, Sir Richard, Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, I, 103, + 111, 114, 263, 280, 357–8; II, 14 + + Richmond, Surrey, I, 63, 327; II, 7, 30 + + Richmond, Yorks., I, 210, 221, 283, 359, 377; II, 28, 44, 79, 83, 85, + 105–6, 108, 110, 112, 114 + the monastery of St Agatha, II, 21, 85, 121–2 + the Grey Friars, II, 106 + Moor, II, 110 + + Richmond, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of, I, 1, 30, 302; II, 273, 299 + + Richmondshire, I, 163, 182, 201–4, 206, 216, 220, 226, 237, 251, 262; + II, 62, 66, 74, 78, 80, 97, 106, 108, 110, 128, 180, 203, 208, 214 + + Rievaux Abbey, I, 233 + + Ringstanhirst, I, 149, 155 + + Ripley, John, Abbot of Kirkstall, I, 382; II, 92 + + Ripon, I, 143, 201, 238, 262, 355, 359, 388; II, 28, 50–1, 111 + + Risby, I, 48 + + Rising of the North, I, 209; II, 53, 120 + + Rither, —, I, 345 + + Robin Hood’s Cross, I, 252 + + Robin, William, I, 224 + + Robson, family of, II, 228 + + Robson, Archie, I, 196; II, 238 + + Robson, Geoffrey, II, 41, 230, 238 + + Robson, Henry, II, 230–1 + + Robson, John, I, 196 + + Robson, John, of Fawston, II, 238 + + Roche Abbey, I, 349 + + Rochester, II, 165 + + Rochester, the Bishop of. _See_ Fisher, John + + Rochester, John, II, 137 + + Roddam, John, I, 199 + + Rogers, William, mayor of Hull, I, 155–6, 158–9, 161, 288–9; II, 63–4, + 72, 76, 81, 206 + + Rogerson, Ralph, II, 175, 178 + + Rokeby, Dr John, I, 377–8, 382–3, 388 + + Rokeby, Lady, I, 48 + + Rokeby, Thomas, I, 202 + + Rokeby, William, I, 388 + + Romaldkirk, the priest of, I, 203 + + Rome, Church of. _See_ Church of Rome + + Rome, I, 6, 82, 333, 335–9, 341, 351, 354, 356, 383; II, 279–80, + 286–9, 302, 326 + + Rooper, Thomas, II, 177 + + Roos, Edward, I, 155 + + Rose, Mr, II, 44 + + Rosedale nunnery, II, 76, 160, 162 + + Ross, I, 325 + + Rossington Bridge, I, 250–1 + + Rothbury, I, 299; II, 41, 202 + + Rotherham, I, 310, 319, 323, 344 + + Rothwell, I, 74, 98 + + Rouen, II, 242, 255 + + Rous, Anthony, II, 138 + + Royston, Herts., II, 244–5 + + Rudston, —, I, 157 + + Rudston, Nicholas, I, 157–60, 164, 181, 184, 235, 238–9, 345–6; II, + 74–5, 90–1, 136, 140, 163–4, 206 + + Rumour + of Aske’s execution, II, 45, 50 + of the King’s death, II, 297 + of the King’s Intentions after the rebellion, II, 45–6, 67, 77, + 94–6, 105–6, 108, 112 + of the King’s strength, I, 167, 250, 324, 327, 331 + of new laws and taxes I, 13, 76–80, 91–2, 96–9, 102, 112, 121–2, + 129, 153, 228, 243, 321; II, 30, 35, 93, 114, 142, 165, 169, 177 + of murders committed by the Lincs. rebels, I, 95, 112, 133 + of Norfolk’s arrest, II, 46, 291 + of the Pilgrims’ strength, I, 122, 287–8, 293, 321, 329, 331, 339 + that Pole had become Pope, II, 318 + of new risings, II, 171, 174, 176 + of the defeat of the royal army, I, 122–3, 334 + + Ruskington, the bailiff of, I, 131 + + Russell, Sir John, I, 122–3, 128, 245, 293, 305, 319; II, 4, 6, 7, 8, + 22 + + Rutland, Thomas Manners, Earl of, I, 118–9, 122, 129, 265, 294–6, + 319–20; II, 23, 52, 206, 237, 239, 251 + + Rycard, Thomas, I, 24 + + Rydale, I, 81, 151, 153; II, 58 + + Ryder, Henry, I, 186 + + Rye, the curate of, I, 68 + + Rylston, I, 52; II, 43, 56 + + Rysse, Lady. _See_ Howard, Katherine + + Ryther, Sir Ralph, I, 51 + + Ryton, I, 230–1 + + + Sadler, Ralph, I, 86, 207; II, 93–4, 104, 246, 254–6 + + St Asaph, the Bishop of. _See_ Warton, Robert + + St Clare’s Bradfield (Senkler’s Bradfield), I, 69 + + St David, diocese of, II, 166 + + St German, Christopher, I, 346 + + St John Ley, I, 196 + + St John, Sir John, I, 34 + + St Kerverne, II, 170–1, 181 + + St Lo, Sir John, I, 87; II, 172 + + St Oswald’s, I, 184 + + St Vincent, I, 19 + + Sais, Harry, I, 234, 244 + + Salisbury, II, 167 + + Salisbury, the diocese of, II, 167 + + Salisbury, Margaret, Countess of I, 14, 15, 17; II, 275–6, 285–6, 296, + 302–8, 310, 315–7, 323–7 + + Saltmarsh, Thomas, I, 148–9, 181, 185, 345; II, 53 + + Sampoul, Mr, I, 107 + + Sampson, Richard, Bishop of Chichester, I, 276 + + Sanctuary, act restricting the right of, I, 8, 355, 384 + + Sandall Castle, II, 52 + + Sanderdale Hill, I, 223 + + Sanders, N. ‘De Origine ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani’, II, 142 + + Sanderson, Mr, I, 101, 124 + + Sanderson, Christopher, I, 147, 151; II, 49 + + Sandes (Sandys), William, Lord, I, 18, 23, 276; II, 36, 79 + + Sandforth Moor, I, 221 + + Sandon, Sir William, I, 101 + + Sandsend, II, 87 + + Sandwich, I, 134 + + Saville, Sir Henry, I, 56–7, 61, 172, 190, 235–6, 250, 282, 286, 288, + 297–8, 310–1, 316, 321; II, 52, 92, 136, 140, 212, 257–8, 268 + + Saville, Thomas, I, 61 + + Sawcliff, I, 50, 105–7 + + Sawl, —, I, 156, 158 + + Sawley Abbey, I, 210, 213, 215, 217–9, 225, 261, 270; II, 39, 56, + 83–6, 111, 121–2, 127–9, 142–3, 145, 212, 266 + + Sawley, the Abbot of, I, 213; II, 39, 83–6, 98, 122, 124–5, 127–9, + 142–3, 180, 203–4, 212 + + Sawley, the Prior of, I, 317 + + Sawley, Henry, II, 145–6 + + Scarborough, I, 83, 281, 318, 359, 388; II, 9, 45–7, 57, 60–2, 66–9, + 71–2, 77–8, 80, 88, 98, 110, 125, 159, 198, 212, 253, 255 + the bailiffs of, II, 67, 70, 97–8 + Castle, I, 44, 150, 157, 183, 211, 212, 225, 239, 286, 298, 313–4, + 317, 322–3; II, 33, 52, 67–70, 77, 98, 183 + the Grey Friars’ House, II, 70 + + Scarlet, —, II, 133 + + Scawby Hill, I, 255 + + Scawsby Lease, I, 260 + + Scotherne, I, 107 + + Scotland + Border officers, I, 299; II, 227, 238, 246, 248–9, 268 + the Chancellor of. _See_ Gawan + Council of, II, 246–7, 249 + English spies in, II, 117, 228, 249, 266 + alliance with France, I, 340; II, 267 + dislike of Henry VIII in, II, 242, 250 + James V’s return to, II, 238, 241–3, 246–7, 249, 253–5 + the King of. _See_ James V + days of march, I, 222; II, 41–2, 238–9, 248–9 + murder of an English herald, I, 306; II, 86 + sympathy with the Pilgrimage of Grace, II, 217, 247, 249 + a refuge for rebels, I, 31, 65; II, 65, 77, 86, 93, 108, 159, 244, + 246, 249–50, 261, 263, 266–7 + the Regents’ correspondence with Norfolk, II, 246–7, 249–50 + expected war with England, I, 198, 201, 258, 335; II, 230, 238, 240, + 243–9, 270 + previous wars with England, I, 19, 40, 238, 272, 359; II, 144 + reference, I, 187, 193, 304; II, 10, 28, 59, 95, 103, 134, 216, 219, + 230, 256 + + Scott, Sir Walter, quoted, I, 212, 272; II, 69, 77 + + Scriptures In English, the, I, 10, 51, 66–7, 93; II, 243, 292, 303, + 321, 324 + + Scrivelsby, I, 89, 101, 106, 124 + + Scrooby, I, 228, 234, 249, 257 + + Scrope, Henry, Lord, I, 40, 185, 201, 208, 212, 238, 250, 262, 269, + 312, 316, 345; II, 13, 79, 102, 108, 214 + + Sculcotes, I, 160–1 + + Seamer, I, 150, 230–1, 285 + + Sedbarr, Adam, Abbot of Jervaux, I, 202–3, 206, 208; II, 38, 107–8, + 127, 135, 156, 203, 211, 213–4, 216 + + Sedbergh, I, 143, 207, 217, 298, 316, 369 + + Sedgefield, I, 226 + + Sedition + bills, I, 70; II, 43–4, 86, 96–7, 105, 110, 112, 159, 164, 167 + books, I, 72, 175 + plays, II, 176 + rhymes, I, 83–6, 213, 236, 266, 280–1, 305, 307, 350; II, 105, + 169–70, 174, 178, 212, 290 + offers to the King of Scotland, II, 253–6 + sermons. _See_ Sermons, seditious + speeches, I, 24, 57, 64, 66, 69–72, 79, 91, 112, 118, 120, 131, 133, + 145, 207, 218, 319, 326; II, 39, 111, 146, 169, 175–9, 185, + 215–7, 243, 290–3, 308, 312–3 + watch for, in the southern counties, I, 325; II, 245 + + Selby, I, 151, 170, 180, 285, 291 + + Serls, —, vicar of St Peter’s in the East, Oxford, II, 168 + + Sermons + heretical, I, 22, 66, 68, 71, 324, 353; II, 14, 166–7 + loyal, I, 7, 8, 10, 43–4, 64, 71, 274, 280, 324, 353; II, 25, 35, + 44, 52, 100, 146, 167, 168, 256 + on Purgatory. _See_ Purgatory + seditious, I, 7, 64–8, 72, 92, 213, 326; II, 154, 164–5, 167 + + Servant, —, II, 106, 203 + + Seton, I, 40 + + Settle Spring, II, 83 + + Settrington, I, 40; II, 59, 61, 66, 87, 98, 160, 198 + + Seyman, Robert, II, 176–7 + + Seymour, Jane, I, 1, 2, 108, 117, 145, 207, 244, 330; II, 25, 27, 37, + 48–9, 139, 171, 181, 206, 245, 259, 297 + + Shaftoe, Cuthbert, II, 263 + + Shakespeare, W. ‘Henry IV’, I, 85 + + Shaxton, Nicholas, Bishop of Salisbury, II, 167 + + Sheffield Park, I, 99; II, 24 + + Shepcotes Heath, II, 175 + + Sherburn, II, 198 + + Sheriff of Lincolnshire. _See_ Dymmoke, Sir Edward + + Sheriff of Yorkshire. _See_ Hastings, Sir Brian + + Sheriffhutton Castle, I, 46, 208; II, 34, 105, 110, 112, 134, 139, + 248, 252–5, 257, 261, 263, 268, 270, 275 + + Sherwood, Dr, Chancellor of Beverley minster, I, 382–3 + + Shetland, II, 256 + + Shewlton, I, 222 + + Shipton, I, 158 + + Shirburn, I, 235 + + Shrewsbury, II, 165 + + Shrewsbury, George Talbot, Earl of, correspondence with Cromwell. + _See_ Cromwell, Thomas, correspondence with the Earl of Shrewsbury + and Lord Darcy. _See_ Darcy, Thomas, Lord, and the Earl of + Shrewsbury + and Sir George Darcy, I, 294, 297–8 + his daughters, I, 32, 34, 285 + his advance to the Don, I, 215, 238, 245–6, 249–51, 257, 260, 268–9; + II, 5 + and the first appointment at Doncaster, I, 219, 259–60, 265–6, 270, + 300, 302 + at the second conference at Doncaster, II, 6, 10 + finances, I, 119, 244, 246, 296 + and Lord Hussey, I, 113, 130–1 + and the King, I, 108, 116, 119, 135, 173, 242–3, 249, 294, 298; II, + 6, 34, 89 + and the Lincs. rebels, I, 99, 112, 119, 121, 128–30, 228 + his musters, I, 108, 113, 116, 118, 121, 122, 233–4 + his joint commission with Norfolk. _See_ Norfolk, the Duke of, his + joint commission with Shrewsbury + in command against the Pilgrims, I, 135, 143, 173, 185, 188, 230, + 243, 249 + correspondence with the other commanders, I, 129–30, 134, 208, + 245–6, 249–50, 298 + his preparations during the truce, I, 282, 319–20 + reference, I, 168, 187, 223, 224, 235–6, 258, 262, 276, 285, 311, + 329; II, 24, 27, 33, 43, 52–3, 148 + + Shropshire, I, 67, 113 + + Shuttleworth, George, II, 39, 83–5, 98, 142, 202 + + Siena, I, 336 + + Siggiswick, —, I, 211 + + Silvester (Sylvester), Robert, Prior of Guisborough, I, 317; II, 40, + 56–7, 201 + + Simondburn Castle, II, 235 + + Simpson, Percy, I, 224 + + Simpson, Richard, II, 66 + + Skerne, the river, I, 226 + + Skipton, I, 295, 359; II, 28 + the vicar of. _See_ Blackborne, William + Castle, I, 51–2, 54, 150, 183, 206–12, 225, 238–9, 250, 312, 316; + II, 6, 43, 246 + + Skipwith Moor, I, 148–9, 170 + + Skipwith, Mr, I, 154 + + Skipwith, Sir William, I, 95, 125–6; II, 148 + + Sleaford, I, 21, 24, 26, 104, 109–10, 112–3, 118, 126–7, 130–2; II, + 153 + + Smithfield, London, II, 59, 198, 215 + + Smythely, —, I, 154 + + Smythely, Richard, II, 81 + + Snaith, I, 284, 296; II, 126, 134 + + Snaith, the bailiff of, II, 49, 64 + + Snape, I, 74, 273; II, 80, 108 + + Snelland, I, 124; II, 153 + the vicar of. _See_ Ratford, Thomas + + Snow, Richard, I, 328 + + Somerset county, I, 87–8; II, 26, 172, 215 + + Somerset Herald. _See_ Treheyron, Thomas + + Sotby, II, 152 + + Soulay, Henry, II, 87 + + Southampton, I, 63; II, 171 + + Southampton, the Earl of. _See_ Fitzwilliam, Sir William + + Southbye, Robert, II, 153 + + South Cave, I, 154 + + Southwell, I, 246 + + Southwell, Richard, II, 164 + + Southwell, Robert, II, 164, 273 + + Sowerby, the vicar of, I, 222 + + Sowle, Thomas, I, 70, 79 + + Spain, I, 19, 22, 45 + + Spalding, I, 111–2 + the Prior of, I, 112 + + ‘Spanish Chronicle’, I, 240; II, 23, 36–7, 54, 217, 326–7 + + Speed, John, ‘History of Great Britain’, I, 191, 287, 387; II, 97–8 + + Speke, Sir George, II, 324 + + Spencer, Bishop, II, 173 + + Spencer, Sir Robert, I, 31 + + Spennymore, I, 204–6 + + Spittel, the Wold beyond, I, 231 + + Spittels, II, 69, 71 + + Stafford, II, 165 + + Stafford, Henry, I, 39 + + Stafford, Henry, Lord, I, 14, 287; II, 292 + + Stafford, Sir Humphry, I, 45 + + Stafford, Ursula, wife of Lord Stafford, I, 14 + + Stafford county, I, 113, 215 + + Staindrop, II, 66 + + Staines, George, I, 103, 114–5, 123 + + Stainton, John, II, 107–8 + + Stamford, I, 109, 112, 122–3, 128, 246, 305; II, 59, 149 + + Standish, Thomas, II, 316–7 + + Stanger, Leonard, I, 327 + + Stanley, family of, II, 204 + + Stanley, Edward, I, 53; II, 204 + + Stanley, Thomas, I, 169, 214–6 + + Stanley, Sir William, I, 215 + + Stanton, Lacy, I, 67 + + Stapleton, family of, I, 57 + + Stapleton, Sir Brian, I, 58, 146–7, 151, 158, 160, 235, 239 + + Stapleton, Brian, II, 333 + + Stapleton, Christopher, I, 57–8, 146–7; II, 333 + his wife, I, 58, 146–8; II, 216 + + Stapleton, Philip, II, 333 + + Stapleton, William, I, 36, 55, 58, 62, 78–9, 146–7, 151–4, 157–63, + 167, 174, 176, 235, 239, 255, 270, 284–5, 312 + + Stappill, John, II, 308 + + Star Chamber, Court of + Order for the government of Beverley, I, 48 + Sir William Bulmer before, I, 37 + Cases + Beckwith _v._ Aclom, II, 218 + Leonard Constable _v._ Sir Oswald Wolsthrope, I, 58–9 + concerning the Earl of Cumberland’s servants, I, 34, 53 + relating to enclosures, I, 369 + Hans Ganth _v._ the Abbot of Whitby I, 42 + Holdsworth _v._ Lacy, I, 61; II, 258 + Thomas Moigne _v._ George Bowgham, I, 90 + the burgesses of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I, 206 + John Norton _v._ the Earl of Cumberland, I, 52 + Sir William Percy _v._ Sir Robert Constable, I, 47 + John Proctor _v._ Thomas Blackborne and others, I, 53 + between Tempest and Saville, I, 56, 61 + the Abbot of Whitby _v._ the town, I, 41–2 + fines recalcitrant juries, I, 60 + reference, I, 89; II, 272 + + Starkey, Thomas, I, 16, 338; II, 295, 305 + + Staunton, Gloucestershire, I, 66 + + Staveley, Ninian, I, 203; II, 107, 108, 110, 113, 138, 203, 214, 219 + + Staynhus, William, II, 76, 159–64, 200–1, 219 + + Steward, the Lord. _See_ Shrewsbury, George Talbot, Earl of + + Stewart, William, II, 10, 22 + + Stewart, William, Bishop of Aberdeen, II, 217, 247, 249 + + Stillingfleet, II, 80 + + Stilton, I, 109 + + Stockwith, I, 293 + + Stoke-on Trent, I, 120 + + Stoke, Somerset, II, 291 + + Stoke Nayland, II, 165 + + Stokesley, John, Bishop of London, II, 292, 305 + + Stokton, —, II, 110 + + Stonar, Francis, I, 106 + + Stone Fair, II, 173 + + Stonor, Sir Walter, II, 190 + + Stony Stratford, I, 246 + + Stonys (Staines), Brian, I, 101–2; II, 153 + + Story, Edward, II, 246 + + Stow, John, ‘Chronicle’, II, 143 + + Stowe, I, 325 + + Stowping Sise, I, 260, 262 + + Strangways, Sir James, I, 40, 205, 235, 312, 345; II, 96, 136, 160 + + Strangways, Thomas, I, 180–1, 185, 188–9; II, 127–9, 193–4, 216, 219 + + Streatlam, I, 36 + + Strebilhill, John, II, 215 + + Strebilhill, Thomas, II, 169 + + Strickland, —, I, 345 + + Strickland, Walter, I, 219 + + Strype, J., ‘Ecclesiastical Memorials’, I, 388 + + Stuard, —, bailiff of Beverley, I, 145, 151 + + Sturley, I, 78 + + Sturley, Sir Nicholas, I, 319 + + Sturton I, 101, 124 + + Subsidy, the, I, 11, 72, 74, 76–7, 91, 96–8, 141, 192, 372–3; II, 99, + 125, 172, 174–5, 177 + + Succession, the three Acts of, I, 10, 76, 355–6 + the second Act of, I, 11, 26, 72 + the third Act of, I, 1, 264, 317–8, 361–3 + + Suffolk county, I, 12, 69, 121–2, 241, 326; II, 164–5, 173–4, 176 + + Suffolk, Charles Brandon, Duke of + his council, I, 319; II, 150 + and the second conference at Doncaster, II, 2, 6–8, 11, 17, 189 + correspondence with the King, I, 129, 133–6, 289, 296, 311, 320, + 323; II, 6–8, 23, 148–9, 197 + at Lincoln, I, 135–6, 165–6, 245, 282, 293, 319; II, 148–50, 220 + commander against the Lincs. rebels, I, 120, 122–3, 132, 134, 142–3, + 241, 247–8, 305 + his correspondence with the other commanders, I, 211, 246, 274, 293, + 297, 301, 313 + and the Lincs. gentlemen, I, 127–30, 136, 172; II, 148–9 + his second mission to Lincs., II, 52 + returns to London, II, 24 + and the Duke of Norfolk. _See_ Norfolk, the Duke of, and Suffolk + communications with the Pilgrims, I, 288–9, 297, 300–6 + his position during the truce, I, 278–9, 281–2, 286, 293, 297–8, + 301, 318 + reference, I, 95, 121, 210, 213, 244, 249–50, 266, 269, 276, 306; + II, 9, 27, 45–6, 220 + + Suffolk, Duchess of. _See_ Tudor, Mary + + Sulyard, Mr, II, 19 + + Suppression of the Smaller Monasteries + act for, I, 3, 8, 14, 25, 136–7, 178–9, 222, 264, 351, 353, 374; II, + 19, 25–6, 141 + begun, I, 74, 87 + commissioners for, I, 91, 95,133, 204, 206, 377, 387; II, 16, 26, + 56, 99, 101, 155 + the commissioners resisted, I, 169, 193–5, 213–4, 316 + expenditure of the spoils. _See_ Monasteries, grants of + a motive for rebellion, I, 28, 73, 98, 133, 186–7, 189, 212–3, 222, + 271, 316, 333, 348–51, 379, 384; II, 35, 40, 79, 85, 156, 173, + 175, 177, 312. _See also_ Demands of the rebels + continued after the rebellion, II, 99–100, 111, 121–2, 124–5, 127–9, + 141, 172, 174–5 + by Wolsey, I, 75, 213, 271, 307 + reference, I, 76, 153, 265, 326, 339; II, 15, 68, 155, 227. _See + also_ Monasteries + + Supremacy, Act of, I, 7, 23, 26, 43, 64–5, 68–9, 73, 76, 98, 139, 213, + 347; II, 14–5, 295. + _See also_ Henry VIII, Supreme Head of the Church of England + + Surrey county, II, 320 + + Surrey, Henry Howard, Earl of, I, 120, 242, 244–5, 259, 265–6; II, 23, + 64, 186, 250–1 + + Sussex county, I, 51, 69, 82, 326; II, 164, 293, 308 + + Sussex, Robert Ratcliff, Earl of, I, 276, 290; II, 52, 111, 141–8, + 158, 193, 218, 225 + + Sussex, the Countess of, II, 141 + + Sutton, Sir John, I, 114 + + Sutton, Robert, mayor of Lincoln, I, 99–101, 114, 132; II, 196 + + Sutton-upon-Derwent, I, 174, 382 + the rector of. _See_ Palmes, Dr George + + Swaledale, I, 182, 209; II, 61, 78, 110–1 + + Swalowfield, —, II, 123 + + Swan, John, II, 177 + + Swanland, I, 162 + + Swayne, Michael, II, 134 + + Swensune, Ralph, II, 39 + + Sweton, II, 155 + + Swinburne, Dr, I, 344; II, 62 + + Swinburne, John, II, 112 + + Swinhoe, Robert, I, 199 + + Swinnerton, —, I, 67 + + + Tadcaster, I, 57, 150, 235, 270; II, 94 + + Tailboys, Elizabeth Blount, Lady, I, 107 + + Tailboys, Gilbert, Lord, II, 235 + + Talbot, Francis, Lord, I, 250–1, 253, 274, 294 + + Talbot, William, I, 296; II, 147, 189 + + Talentire, II, 44 + + Tantallon Castle, II, 266 + + Taunton, I, 87; II, 172 + + Tavistock, the Abbot of, I, 75 + + Taxation, I, 2, 3, 11, 29, 98, 114, 182, 192, 332, 352, 371–3 + + Taylor, John, I, 93 + + Taylor, Lawrence, a harper, II, 304, 308 + + Tees, the river, I, 36–7 + + Tempest, family of, I, 37, 235; II, 148, 257 + + Tempest, John, I, 210 + + Tempest, Nicholas, I, 210, 215, 219, 226, 312, 317; II, 39, 86, 133, + 135, 144–5, 201, 211–2, 214 + + Tempest, Sir Richard, of the Dale, I, 18 + + Tempest, Sir Richard, I, 56–7, 61, 172, 190, 210, 235–6, 239, 250, + 269, 312, 316, 345; II, 43, 52, 128, 144, 215, 218 + + Tempest, Sir Thomas, I, 38, 61, 172, 345–6, 357–8, 366, 368, 373; II, + 133, 135, 260, 265, 271–4 + + Templehurst, I, 18, 24, 118, 143, 170, 188, 207, 288, 290, 300, + 308–12, 327–8, 344; II, 34, 48–50, 52, 93, 109, 147, 189, 198 + + Tenande, —, II, 43 + + Tenant, Mr, II, 207 + + Tenant, Richard, of Holderness, I, 155, 160 + + Tenant right, I, 369 + + Tenth, the lay, I, 11, 372 + + Tenths, ecclesiastical, I, 6, 98, 187, 349, 351–2, 384–5; II, 14, 34, + 45, 49, 51, 53, 139 + + Terouanne, I, 19 + + Teshe, Tristram, I, 157; II, 139 + + Tewkesbury, I, 70 + + Thame, II, 169, 215 + + Thames, the river, I, 23; II, 25, 292 + + Theobald, —, II, 302 + + Thetford, I, 266 + + Thicket Priory, I, 51 + + Thimbleby, Sir John, I, 128, 136 + + Thimbleby, young, I, 128 + + Thingden, I, 369 + + Thirleby, Thomas, II, 201 + + Thirsk, I, 388 + + Thirsk, William, quondam Abbot of Fountains, II, 107, 127, 135, 203, + 211, 214 + + Thomas a Becket, St, I, 64; II, 299 + + Thomas the Rhymer, I, 82–4, 86 + + Thomas, William, ‘The Pilgrim’, I, 263; II, 36, 217 + + Thomlynson, —, I, 202 + + Thompson, Robert, vicar of Borough-under-Stainmoor, I, 220–5, 370; II, + 219 + + Thomson, John, II, 62 + + Thoresway, I, 98 + + Thorley, I, 326 + + Thornbury, II, 139 + + Thorndon, II, 166 + + Thorne, I, 296 + + Thorneton, John, I, 166 + + Throgmorton, Sir George, I, 328–9; II, 279 + + Throgmorton, Michael, I, 16; II, 278–80, 283–5, 287–8, 302, 305, 318 + + Thwaites, —, II, 132–3 + + Thwaites, James, Prior of Pontefract, I, 382 + + Thwaites, William, vicar of Londesborough, I, 62, 72–3 + + Thwing (Thweng), I, 205, 232; II, 66, 72 + + Tibbey, Thomas, II, 106, 111–3, 117 + + Tickhill, I, 251 + Castle, I, 319, 388 + + Tithes, I, 225, 370; II, 21, 44, 56, 106, 112 + + Todde, William, Prior of Malton, I, 81, 163; II, 58, 59, 66 + + Tonge, T. ‘Visitation of Yorkshire’, I, 61 + + Toone, Thomas, I, 70 + + Topcliff, I, 184; II, 125 + + Topcliffe, John. _See_ Hexham, John, Abbot of Whitby + + Tortington, I, 82 + + Tournelles, II, 240 + + Towcester, I, 321 + + Tower of London + as an arsenal, I, 108, 117, 119, 120, 134, 327 + the Beauchamp Tower, II, 202 + the lieutenant of the. _See_ Walsingham, Sir Edmund + as a prison, I, 26, 31, 38, 191, 208, 324, 329, 348, 353, 360, 366; + II, 25, 33, 46, 53, 105, 125, 143, 151, 153–4, 159, 163, 182–3, + 185–7, 193, 195, 197–200, 202, 206–8, 213, 215–6, 219–20, 223, + 266, 273, 279, 282, 285, 291, 306–10, 312–21, 323–6 + + Tower Hill, II, 216, 315, 321 + + Towghtwodde, Thomas, I, 87 + + Towneley, Bernard, Chancellor of the diocese of Carlisle, I, 222–4; + II, 121–2, 266 + + Townley, —, I, 216 + + Townley, John, I, 216 + + Townley, Sir John, I, 216 + + Towse Athyenges Heath, I, 106; II, 154 + + Towton, battle of, I, 40 + + Tranby, I, 153 + + Treason. _See_ Sedition + + Treason, Act of, I, 10–11, 76, 263, 332, + 365–6; II, 14, 176, 192–3, 201, 211, 215, 289, 293, 310–13, 321 + + Treasury, the, II, 59, 195 + + Treglosacke, —, II, 171 + + Tregonwell, Dr John, II, 170, 199, 204 + + Treheyron, Thomas, Somerset Herald, I, 299–306; II, 86, 190 + + Trent, the river, I, 29, 130, 141–2, 148–9, 172, 245, 249, 260, 268, + 282, 294, 310, 314, 319, 368, 375; II, 4, 5, 23, 106, 252 + + Tristram, William, chantry priest of Lartington, I, 203, 377–8; II, 40 + + Trotter, Philip, I, 125; II, 153 + + Trowen, Sir Charles, I, 287 + + Truce of Doncaster, I, 201, 211, 219–20, chap. xi, pp. 241–72, chap. + xii, pp. 273–306, 317, 327, 330, 340, 342; II, 1, 9, 21, 84, 102, + 115, 151 + + Tudor, Mary, sister of Henry VIII, Duchess of Suffolk, I, 35, 87, 210 + + Tunstall, Cuthbert, Bishop of Durham, I, 6, 9, 35–6, 72, 203–4, 207, + 354; II, 33, 40, 78, 102, 200, 231, 260, 265, 267–8, 270, 272–5, + 305, 330–1 + + Tunstall, Sir Marmaduke, I, 218 + + Turkey, I, 17, 269, 304, 380; II, 287, 299 + + Turner, Richard, I, 329 + + Tuxford, I, 259, 269 + + Tweed, the river, II, 217 + + Tyburn, II, 154, 214, 216, 315 + + Tyndale, Gervase, I, 65–6; II, 169, 303–4 + + Tyndale, William, I, 346, 353; II, 243–4, 283 + + Tyndale Wood, Suffolk, II, 176 + + Tyne, the river, I, 33, 36; II, 41, 274 + + Tynedale, I, 230 + North, I, 35, 115, 195–8, 299; II, 6, 41, 81, 120, 122, 228–35, + 237–8, 248, 257, 262–4, 268–70, 274–5 + North, keepers of. _See_ Fenwick, Roger, Carnaby, Sir Reynold, _and_ + Heron, John of Chipchase + South, II, 235 + + Tynemouth Priory, II, 38, 40, 253, 255 + + Tyrwhit, Sir Robert, I, 97–100, 106, 116, 126, 165; II, 148, 154 + + Tyrwhit, Robert, I, 109–10, 116 + + Tyrwhit, Sir William, sheriff of Lincs., 1537 II, 151, 153 + + + Unlawful Games, act forbidding, II, 243 + + Uses, Statute of, I, 12, 28, 69, 102–3, 114, 124, 137, 139, 264, 266, + 362, 364–5, 368, 387; II, 24, 319 + + Usselby, I, 99 + + Uty, Philip, II, 47, 63–4 + + Uvedale, John, II, 138, 201, 272 + + + Vachell, Richard, I, 222 + + Valor Ecclesiasticus, I, 388 + + Vaughan, William, II, 283–4 + + Vavasour, Sir Peter, I, 345; II, 3, 4 + + Venice, II, 302 + + Vernon, Roger, II, 169 + + Vienna, the Council of, I, 384 + + Villiers, —, I, 264 + + Visitation of the Monasteries, I, 63, 183, 318, 354; II, 56, 135, 146, + 173 + + + Wade, —, I, 343; II, 60, 62 + + Waflin, William, II, 266 + + Waid, Robert, I, 58 + + Wakefield, I, 56, 169, 172, 180, 184–5, 235, 237, 250, 282, 295, 306, + 310, 321, 343–4, 359; II, 28, 34 + + Walbourne Hope, II, 176 + + Waldby (Walby) Marmaduke, prebendary of Carlisle and vicar of Kirk + Deighton, I, 23–4, 27, 310, 382–3; II, 90–1, 266 + + Waldeby, Philip, I, 157–8 + + Waldron, I, 69 + + Wales, I, 215; II, 165, 284, 290 + + Walker, —, I, 312, 318 + + Walkington, —, I, 156 + + Wall, Robert, II, 222 + + Wallace, William, I, 313 + + Wallop, Sir John, ambassador in France, I, 132, 325, 333; II, 240 + + Walsingham, I, 328; II, 174, 176–9 + + Walsingham Priory, II, 175, 177 + the sub-Prior of. _See_ Mileham, Nicholas + the shrine of Our Lady, II, 174 + + Walsingham, Sir Edmund, lieutenant of the Tower, II, 46, 198, 207, 307 + + Warblington, I, 332; II, 296, 302–4, 315–8 + the rector of. _See_ Heliar, John + + Wardens of the Marches + English. _See_ Borders, officers + Scottish. _See_ Scotland, Border officers + + Ware, I, 119; II, 32 + + Wark, II, 238 + + Warrington, II, 141–2 + + Wars of the Roses, I, 14, 359; II, 55 + + Warter Priory, I, 72; II, 110 + + Warton, Robert, Bishop of St Asaph, II, 165 + + Warwick, Richard Neville, Earl of, the Kingmaker, I, 14, 15, 36 + + Water, Thomas, II, 66 + + Waters, Edward, I, 314, 317; II, 9, 17, 57 + + Watton Priory, I, 152, 285–6, 344; II, 40, 58–63, 66, 82, 98, 102 + the confessor of the nuns, II, 59 + the Prior of. _See_ Holgate, Robert + the sub-Prior of. _See_ Gill, Harry + the cellerar of. _See_ Lather, Thomas + + Watton village, I, 153, 157, 280, 343; II, 47, 58–61, 63, 110 + parish church, I, 152; II, 47–8 + the curate of, I, 343 + the vicar of, II, 47, 59 + + Watton Carre, II, 59 + + Watts, John, II, 158–64, 200 + + Waverton, I, 382 + + Wednesborough, the parson of, I, 82 + + Weeley, I, 70 + + Welbeck, I, 259–60; II, 6, 10, 23 + + Wells, Morgan, II, 294 + + Wensleydale, I, 143, 182, 207, 209–10, 237, 262; II, 61 + + Went, the river, I, 234, 239 + + Wentbridge (Ferrybridge), I, 233–4, 238–9, 251, 256 + + Wentworth, —, II, 132 + + Wentworth, Sir John, I, 186 + + Wentworth, Sir Thomas, II, 197, 220, 263–4 + + Wentworth, Thomas, I, 297; II, 199 + + West Malling, II, 243 + + Westminster, I, 30, 36, 303, 359–60 + + Westminster Abbey, II, 27 + + Westminster Hall, II, 193, 198, 206 + + Westmorland, the barony of, I, 371 + + Westmorland county + boundaries, I, 226 + attitude of the clergy to the rebels, I, 354; II, 120 + the commons’ rising, II, 105–6, 111, 113–24, 128, 138, 142 + the first rising there, I, 192, 220–5, 331, 370 + disturbances there after the first rising, II, 44, 111–2 + the rebels’ grievances, I, 217, 220, 226, 299, 318, 369–72; II, + 112–3, 119–21 + loyalists in, II, 6 + pardon proclaimed in, II, 28 + the sheriff of. _See_ Cumberland, the Earl of + the truce proclaimed in, I, 279 + escapes taxation, I, 192, 372 + reference, I, 29, 81, 218, 226, 292, 304, 305, 307, 318, 349, 364; + II, 234, 272 + + Westmorland, Charles Neville, sixth Earl of, II, 53 + + Westmorland, Katherine Neville, Countess of, I, 18, 38; II, 79, 239 + + Westmorland, Ralph Neville, fourth Earl of, I, 18, 29, 38, 157, 182, + 185, 204, 237, 312; II, 44, 56, 78–80, 96, 103, 111, 119, 134, 227, + 229, 236, 239, 253 + + Westwood, Thomas, II, 179 + + Wetherall Priory, II, 263 + + Wetherby, I, 235 + + Whalley Abbey, I, 219–20; II, 138, 142, 144–8 + the Abbot of. _See_ Paslew, John + the Prior of, II, 145, 189 + + Whalley village, II, 142–3 + + Whalworth, James, II, 137 + + Wharfe, the river, I, 231 + + Wharton, George, I, 327 + + Wharton, Richard, I, 151, 155; II, 62 + + Wharton, Sir Thomas, I, 74, 220–1, 292; II, 33, 80, 114, 120, 123, + 239–40, 263–4, 268, 276 + + Whelpdale _alias_ Whelton, Gilbert, I, 221 + + Whenby, I, 345 + + Whitaker, T. D. ‘History of Craven’, II, 143 + + Whitburn, II, 253, 255–6 + + Whitburn, the priest of. _See_ Hodge, Robert + + Whitby, I, 40–2; II, 184 + + Whitby Abbey, I, 41–3, 233, 350; II, 127 + the Abbot of. _See_ Hexham, John + + White Rose Party, the, I, 14, 17–8, 22–4, 28; II, chap. xxii, pp. + 277–96, 302, 311, 318, 321, 323 + + Whitgift, I, 156 + + Whorwood, William, solicitor-general, II, 212–3 + + Wickham, I, 326 + + Wicliff (Wycliff), William, I, 59–60; II, 131, 136 + + Widdrington, Sir John, I, 285; II, 81, 103, 229, 232, 238–9, 263, 269 + + Wighill, I, 57–8, 146, 160, 235, 270 + + Wighton, I, 154–9 + + Wigmore, the Abbot of, II, 165 + + Wilfred, St, I, 153 + + Wilkins, D. ‘Concilia’, I, 388 + + Wilkinson, Hugh, II, 173 + + Wilkinson, John, II, 238 + + Wilkinson, Lancelot, II, 62 + + Wilkinson, Richard, II, 82 + + Willen, George, I, 216 + + William, servant to Anthony Curtis, I, 288 + + Williams, John, I, 123, 140 + + Williamson, Anthony, I, 96 + + Willoughby, family of, I, 89 + + Willoughby, —, I, 327 + + Willoughby, Lady, I, 106 + + Willoughby, Sir Thomas, II, 206 + + Wilson, Mr, II, 285 + + Wilson, Dr, II, 288 + + Wilson, John (Jockey Unsained), I, 92 + + Wilson Richard, I, 145, 150, 155; II, 61–2, 266 + + Wilton, I, 37–8, 40; II, 95, 97 + + Wiltshire, I, 65 + + Wiltshire, Thomas Boleyn, Earl of, II, 193, 266 + + Wimbourne, I, 326 + + Winchester, Bishop of. _See_ Gardiner, Stephen + + Windermere, I, 307; II, 106 + + Windsor, I, 86, 118, 133, 135, 173, 241, 243–4, 274, 278, 289, 291–2, + 326; II, 165, 184, 291 + + Windsor, Lord, II, 193 + + Winestead, the priest of, I, 72 + + Wingfield, I, 282, 294, 311 + + Wingfield, Sir Anthony, I, 122 + + Wistow, I, 151 + + Witchcraft, I, 66, 82; II, 297, 301 + + Witnesham, the parson of. _See_ Jackson, Richard + + Witton, II, 108 + + Witton Fell, I, 202 + + Woburn, the Abbot of, I, 75 + + Wold, the, I, 314 + + Wolsey, Thomas, Cardinal I, 6, 19–20, 31–2, 40, 46, 75, 102, 134, 213, + 271, 307; II, 192, 293 + + Wolsey, Thomas, a servant, I, 102, 104 + + Wolsthrope, Sir Oswald, I, 58–60, 174, 181, 231–3, 238, 345; II, 33, + 48, 74, 80, 83, 101, 127, 200 + + Wood, Elizabeth, II, 177 + + Wood, William, Prior of Bridlington, I, 232; II, 69, 130, 133, 135, + 211–3, 216 + + Woodhouse, the Prior of, II, 166 + + Woodmansey (Woodmancy), William, I, 115, 146, 152–3, 163, 288; II, 74, + 266 + + Woodward, John, II, 165 + + Woollen Clothes, Act of, I, 12, 108, 120 + + Woolpit, I, 121, 241 + + Worcester, city, I, 70, 326 + + Worcester, county, I, 12, 56, 70, 113 + + Worcester, the diocese of, II, 166–7 + + Worcester, the Bishop of. _See_ Latimer, Hugh + + Wothersome, I, 345 + + Wotton, Shropshire, II, 170 + + Wotton-under-Edge, I, 66 + + Wressell Castle, I, 149, 184, 198–9, 230, 283–5, 288, 293, 308, 312; + II, 183, 210, 251 + + Wright, _alias_ West, Anthony, II, 62 + + Wright, John, I, 155, 163 + + Wright, Thomas, II, 179 + + Wriothesley, Charles, ‘Chronicle’, I, 87–8; II, 215 + + Wriothesley, Thomas, I, 140, 173; II, 22, 150 + + Wyatt, Sir Thomas, II, 217 + + Wyclif, John, I, 346 + + Wycliff, Henry, II, 110, 180 + + Wycliffe, the rector of, I, 377–8. + _See also_ Rokeby, Dr John + + Wyfflingham, I, 90, 99 + the bailiff of, I, 100 + + Wynd Oak, I, 159–60 + + Wyndessor, George, II, 150 + + Wyre, William, I, 328 + + Wyvell, John, II, 71, 77, 110 + + + Yarborough Hundred, I, 106 + + Yarm, I, 388 + + Yarmouth, II, 179 + + Yarrow, Henry, II, 238 + + Yeddingham Bridge, II, 87 + + Yersley Moor, II, 110 + + Yoell, Thomas, parish priest of Sotby, II, 152 + + York, the Archbishop of. _See_ Lee, Edward + general reference, I, 45, 48, 348 + + York, the Ainstey of. _See_ Ainstey of York + + York city + monastery of St Andrew, II, 58 + the Archbishop’s prison, I, 72 + assizes, I, 43, 46–7, 56–7, 59, 73; II, 109–11, 120, 122, 131–3, + 135–7, 151, 193, 198 + Botham Bar, I, 175 + Castle, II, 133 + the Clifford Tower, II, 224 + proposed coronation and convocation in, II, 27, 37, 48–9, 72–3 + the Council at, I, chap. xiii, pp. 308–340. + _See also_ Pilgrimage of Grace, the Council at York + the Council of the North at, II, 272–3 + the dean and chapter of, II, 41, 74 + disaffection there, I, 144, 169, 171, 175; II, 40 + executions at, I, 267; II, 110–1, 114, 220, 222, 264, 287, 300–1 + the Priory of the Holy Trinity, II, 38 + market, II, 222–3 + St Mary’s Abbey, I, 179 + —— the Abbot of, I, 231–2; II, 39 + the Lord Mayor of, I, 47. + _See also_ Harrington, William + minster, I, 178, 180, 183, 237, 355, 382; II, 27 + Minstergate, II, 46 + the mint, I, 288 + restoration of the monasteries there, I, 179 + the Duke of Norfolk in, II, 80, 99, 101, 104, 109–10, 113, 122, + 126–7, 129, 131–2, 136–7, 254, 257, 259 + Observant Friars of, I, 57 + pardon proclaimed in, II, 28 + proposed parliament in. _See_ Parliament, proposed, after the + rebellion + its parliamentary members, I, 359 + the Pilgrims advance upon, I, 154, 156, 168–9, 173–5 + the Pilgrims in, I, 141, 163, 178, 180–1, 183–5, 205–6, 209, 231–2, + 235, 239 + represented at the Council of Pontefract, I, 344 + printing-press, I, 252 + prison, I, 44, 47 + prisoners, II, 81, 87, 102 + the sheriff of, II, 275. + _See also_ Lawson, Sir George + White Friars, I, 47 + reference, I, 146, 150, 160, 182, 190–1, 193, 195, 206, 212, 234, + 243, 283–5, 299, 306, 310, 323, 336, 345, 368, 379; II, 3, 8, 34, + 45, 59, 60, 74, 76, 93, 97, 112, 130, 134, 135, 244, 250, 271, + 275 + + York, the vicar-general of the diocese of. _See_ Dakyn, John + + Yorkshire + the Dales of, I, 79, 192, 207, 239, 252; II, 61, 107 + news of the Lincs. rebellion in, I, 99, 104 + proposal to refound monasteries in, II, 26 + the King’s oath in, II, 109 + representation of, in parliament, I, 359–60, 388; II, 15 + unrest in, after the rebellion, II, 44–5 + sedition in, I, 24, 44, 72, 78–9, 121, 207 + the sheriff of, in 1536. _See_ Hastings, Sir Brian + reference, I, 18, 40, 47, 50–1, 55, 59, 71, 87, 91, 105, 110, 153, + 192, 227, 262, 281, 294, 300, 325, 349–50, 364; II, 6, 16–7, 52, + 54, 61, 84–5, 89, 102–3, 106, 109, 112, 125–6, 151, 184, 203, + 223–4, 234, 267, 272–3 + East Riding + outbreak of the rebellion there, I, chap. vii, pp. 141–167 + the pardon proclaimed in, II, 27, 31 + unrest there after the pardon, II, 46–50, 61 + rebel forces from, I, 157, 168, 235, 239, 252, 262 + watch kept during the truce, I, 283 + reference, I, 48, 293; II, 71, 75, 78, 205 + North Riding + character of the rising in, I, 192, 208–9 + outbreak of the rebellion in, I, 157, 171, 201, 208, 230–1 + pardon proclaimed in, II, 28 + unrest there after the pardon, II, 50–1, 61, 76, 79–80, 94, 96, + 106–8, 158 + rebel forces from, I, 252, 283 + reference, I, 37, 150 + West Riding + outbreak of the rebellion, I, 170–1 + pardon proclaimed in, II, 28 + unrest there after the pardon, II, 76, 78 + rebel forces from, I, 239, 252, 262 + reference, I, 18, 149; II, 99 + + Yorkshire Rebellion + the signal of the bells, I, 142, 148 + communications with Lincs. _See_ Lincs. Rebellion, connection with + Yorks. + musters, I, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157 + outbreak, I, 115, 129, 132, 141, 145, 195 + called the Pilgrimage of Grace, I, 157 + _for subsequent references see under_ Pilgrimage of Grace + the rising at Wakefield and Halifax, I, 115, 235–7; II, 218 + + Yorkswold, I, 105, 141, 152, 157–8, 160 + + + Zealand, I, 134, 336 + + Zion, the fathers of, I, 68 + + + =Cambridge=: + PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. + AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS + +----- + +Footnote 1: + + L. and P. XI, 957; printed in full, Speed, op. cit. bk. IX, ch. 21. + +Footnote 2: + + L. and P. XI, 780 (2). + +Footnote 3: + + Ibid. 957. + +Footnote 4: + + L. and P. XI, 1065. + +Footnote 5: + + Ibid. 1064. + +Footnote 6: + + L. and P. XI, 1064. + +Footnote 7: + + Ibid. 1174. + +Footnote 8: + + Ibid. 1103. + +Footnote 9: + + Ibid. 1079. + +Footnote 10: + + Ibid. 1103. + +Footnote 11: + + Ibid. 1079. + +Footnote 12: + + Ibid. 1103. + +Footnote 13: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6, printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 340. + +Footnote 14: + + L. and P. XI, 1196. + +Footnote 15: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 16: + + Ibid. 1242. + +Footnote 17: + + Ibid. 1237, printed in full, Hardwicke, Miscellaneous State Papers, + I, 30. + +Footnote 18: + + See note A at end of chapter. + +Footnote 19: + + L. and P. XI, 1241. + +Footnote 20: + + L. and P. XI, 1226; printed in full, State Papers, I, 518. + +Footnote 21: + + L. and P. XI, 864; see above. + +Footnote 22: + + L. and P. XI, 1226; printed in full, State Papers, I, 518. + +Footnote 23: + + L. and P. XI, 1207, 1208. + +Footnote 24: + + Ibid. 1228; printed in full, Hardwicke, op. cit. I, 27. + +Footnote 25: + + L. and P. XI, 1225; printed in full, State Papers, I, 519. + +Footnote 26: + + L. and P. XI, 1237; printed in full, Hardwicke, op. cit. I, 30. + +Footnote 27: + + L. and P. XI, 1236; printed in full, State Papers, I, 521. + +Footnote 28: + + L. and P. XI, 1237; printed in full, Hardwicke, op. cit. I, 30. + +Footnote 29: + + See note B at end of chapter. + +Footnote 30: + + L. and P. XI, 1227; printed in full, State Papers, I, 511. + +Footnote 31: + + L. and P. XI, 1205, 1206. + +Footnote 32: + + See note C at end of chapter. + +Footnote 33: + + L. and P. XI, 1227; printed in full, State Papers, I, 511. + +Footnote 34: + + L. and P. XI, 1236; printed in full, State Papers, I, 521. + +Footnote 35: + + L. and P. XI, 1236. + +Footnote 36: + + Ibid. 1235; cf. 1197. + +Footnote 37: + + Ibid. 1237; printed in full, Hardwicke, op. cit. I, 30. + +Footnote 38: + + See above, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 39: + + L. and P. XI, 1237. + +Footnote 40: + + Ibid. 1227. + +Footnote 41: + + Ibid. 1237. + +Footnote 42: + + Ibid. 1221. + +Footnote 43: + + L. and P. XI, 1237; printed in full, Hardwicke, op. cit. I, 30. + +Footnote 44: + + L. and P. XI, 1234. + +Footnote 45: + + Ibid. 1233. + +Footnote 46: + + Ibid. 1234. + +Footnote 47: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 340. + +Footnote 48: + + L. and P. XI, 1243. + +Footnote 49: + + L. and P. XI, 1241, 1242. + +Footnote 50: + + Ibid. 1246; printed in full, Speed, op. cit. (3rd ed.), bk. IX, ch. + 21. + +Footnote 51: + + L. and P. XI, 1239, 1240. + +Footnote 52: + + L. and P. XI, 1241. + +Footnote 53: + + Ibid. 1228; printed in full, Papers of the Earl of Hardwicke, I, 27. + +Footnote 54: + + L. and P. XI, 1226, 1228. + +Footnote 55: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 340, 341. + +Footnote 56: + + See note D at end of chapter. + +Footnote 57: + + L. and P. XII (1), 786 (ii, 2). + +Footnote 58: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 341. + +Footnote 59: + + See above, chap. XIV. + +Footnote 60: + + L. and P. XII (1) 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 340–2. + +Footnote 61: + + L. and P. XI, 1246. + +Footnote 62: + + Ibid. 1250. + +Footnote 63: + + L. and P. XI, 957; cf. 1410 (4). + +Footnote 64: + + Ibid. 1110; printed in full, Burnet, History of the Reformation, IV, + 396; Wilkins, Concilia, III, 825. + +Footnote 65: + + L. and P. XI, 1336. + +Footnote 66: + + L. and P. XI, 1227; see note E at end of chapter. + +Footnote 67: + + L. and P. XII (1), 901 (57); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, + 553, 567. + +Footnote 68: + + L. and P. XI, 1226; printed in full, State Papers, I, 518. + +Footnote 69: + + L. and P. XII (1), 787. + +Footnote 70: + + Ibid. 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 341. + +Footnote 71: + + L. and P. XI, 1271. + +Footnote 72: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6. + +Footnote 73: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6, printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 341; cf. + L. and P. XII (1), 29. + +Footnote 74: + + L. and P. XI, 1271. + +Footnote 75: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 341–2. + +Footnote 76: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 77: + + L. and P. XII (1), 848 (i, 4). + +Footnote 78: + + L. and P. XI, 1282. + +Footnote 79: + + Ibid. 1271. + +Footnote 80: + + L. and P. XII (1), 416. + +Footnote 81: + + Ibid. 6; printed Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 341. + +Footnote 82: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 341. + +Footnote 83: + + L. and P. XII (1), 29. + +Footnote 84: + + Ibid. 6; printed Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 342. + +Footnote 85: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 86: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 87: + + L. and P. XII (1), 914. + +Footnote 88: + + Ibid. 787. + +Footnote 89: + + L. and P. XII (1), 787. + +Footnote 90: + + L. and P. XI, 1279. + +Footnote 91: + + L. and P. XII (1), 914. + +Footnote 92: + + Ibid. 787. + +Footnote 93: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 94: + + Ibid. 914. + +Footnote 95: + + L. and P. XI, 1372. + +Footnote 96: + + L. and P. XI, 1271. + +Footnote 97: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 98: + + Ibid. 1234, 1238. + +Footnote 99: + + Ibid. 1271. + +Footnote 100: + + Cf. ibid. 1267. + +Footnote 101: + + L. and P. XI, 1227. + +Footnote 102: + + Spanish Chron. ed. Hume, chap. XVII. + +Footnote 103: + + L. and P. XI, 1236. + +Footnote 104: + + L. and P. XII (1), 29. + +Footnote 105: + + L. and P. XI, 1320. + +Footnote 106: + + Ibid. 1283, 1288. + +Footnote 107: + + See note A at end of chapter. + +Footnote 108: + + L. and P. XII (1), 29. + +Footnote 109: + + L. and P. XI, 1319. + +Footnote 110: + + L. and P. XII (1), 16, 27–29. + +Footnote 111: + + L. and P. XI, 1282. + +Footnote 112: + + Ibid. 1358, 1369; and all the Chronicles under 1536. + +Footnote 113: + + Hall, Chronicle, ann. 1536. + +Footnote 114: + + L. and P. XI, 1291. + +Footnote 115: + + Ibid. 1363; printed in full, Merriman, op. cit. II, no. 174; + extracts in Tierney, op. cit. I, 432. + +Footnote 116: + + L. and P. XI, 1374; printed in full, Latimer’s Remains (Parker + Soc.), p. 375. + +Footnote 117: + + Gasquet, op. cit. II, append. 1. + +Footnote 118: + + Stevens, Monasticon, II, append. 17–19. + +Footnote 119: + + L. and P. XII (1), 32. + +Footnote 120: + + L. and P. XI, 1410 (1); XII (1), 103. + +Footnote 121: + + See coloured map. + +Footnote 122: + + L. and P. XI, 1410 (1). + +Footnote 123: + + Wriothesley, op. cit. I, 55–6; L. and P. XII (1), 47 (4), (11). + +Footnote 124: + + Ibid. 20. + +Footnote 125: + + L. and P. XI, 1410 (1). + +Footnote 126: + + Ibid. 1276; printed in full, Speed, op. cit. bk. 9, ch. 21. + +Footnote 127: + + L. and P. XI, 1235. + +Footnote 128: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 1313. + +Footnote 129: + + See below, chap. XXIII. + +Footnote 130: + + See note B at end of chapter. + +Footnote 131: + + L. and P. XI, 1392. + +Footnote 132: + + Ibid. 1371. + +Footnote 133: + + L. and P. XI, 1276 (1); printed in full, Speed, op. cit. bk. 9, ch. + 21, from which this is copied with corrections from the original. + +Footnote 134: + + L. and P. XII (1), 50, 201 (p. 101). + +Footnote 135: + + L. and P. XII (1), 7, 914, 671 (iii). + +Footnote 136: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 91). + +Footnote 137: + + L. and P. XI, 1337; XII (1), 171. + +Footnote 138: + + L. and P. XI, 1294. + +Footnote 139: + + Ibid. 1306; printed in full, State Papers, I, 523. + +Footnote 140: + + L. and P. XII (1) 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 342. + +Footnote 141: + + L. and P. XI, 1343. + +Footnote 142: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1175. + +Footnote 143: + + Ibid. 1119, 1206. + +Footnote 144: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1175. + +Footnote 145: + + See note C at end of chapter. + +Footnote 146: + + L. and P. XI, 1339. + +Footnote 147: + + L. and P. XII (1), 22. + +Footnote 148: + + L. and P. XI, 1337, 1368. + +Footnote 149: + + Ibid. 1293. + +Footnote 150: + + L. and P. XII (1), 7, 66. + +Footnote 151: + + Ibid. 131, 173. + +Footnote 152: + + L. and P. XI, 1294. + +Footnote 153: + + Ibid. 1410 (1). + +Footnote 154: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 342. + +Footnote 155: + + L. and P. XI, 1365. + +Footnote 156: + + See above, chap. VIII. + +Footnote 157: + + L. and P. XI, 1337, 1380. + +Footnote 158: + + Ibid. 1365. + +Footnote 159: + + Ibid. 1380. + +Footnote 160: + + Ibid. 1365. + +Footnote 161: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1022. + +Footnote 162: + + Ibid. 20. + +Footnote 163: + + Ibid. 39. + +Footnote 164: + + Ibid. 50, 51. + +Footnote 165: + + Ibid. 52. + +Footnote 166: + + L. and P. XII (1), 21. + +Footnote 167: + + L. and P. XI, 1410 (1), 1459, 1481–2; XII (1), 5. + +Footnote 168: + + See above, chap. XII. + +Footnote 169: + + L. and P. XII (1), 67. + +Footnote 170: + + William Thomas, The Pilgrim, ed. J. A. Froude. + +Footnote 171: + + Spanish Chron. ed. Hume, chap. XVII. + +Footnote 172: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1224. + +Footnote 173: + + Ibid. 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 331. + +Footnote 174: + + L. and P. XII (2), 292 (iii); printed, State Papers, I, 558. + +Footnote 175: + + L. and P. XII (1), 43. + +Footnote 176: + + L. and P. XII (1), 848 (ii), (4). + +Footnote 177: + + Ibid. 536. + +Footnote 178: + + Ibid. 1035. + +Footnote 179: + + L. and P. XI, 1293. + +Footnote 180: + + Leadam, Select Cases in the Court of Star Chamber (Selden Soc.), II, + p. 68. + +Footnote 181: + + L. and P. XI, 1293. + +Footnote 182: + + L. and P. XII (1), 892. + +Footnote 183: + + L. and P. XI, 1287. + +Footnote 184: + + L. and P. XII (1), 132, 133. + +Footnote 185: + + See above, chap. XV. + +Footnote 186: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1014; printed, Yorks. Arch. Journ. XI, 254. + +Footnote 187: + + L. and P. XII (1), 491. + +Footnote 188: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 102), 370 (p. 169); see above, chap. XII. + +Footnote 189: + + L. and P. X, 271. + +Footnote 190: + + Ibid. 927. + +Footnote 191: + + L. and P. XI, 1135 (2), 1295. + +Footnote 192: + + Ibid. 1284. + +Footnote 193: + + Ibid. 1371. + +Footnote 194: + + L. and P. XII (1), 192. + +Footnote 195: + + Ibid. 532–3. + +Footnote 196: + + Ibid. 914. + +Footnote 197: + + L. and P. XI, 1294. + +Footnote 198: + + Ibid. 1293. + +Footnote 199: + + Ibid. 1307. + +Footnote 200: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1090; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, + Append. lii, and Raine, Priory of Hexham (Surtees Soc.), I, Append. + p. CXXX et seq. + +Footnote 201: + + L. and P. XI, 1331. + +Footnote 202: + + Ibid. 1320. + +Footnote 203: + + L. and P. XII (1), 7. + +Footnote 204: + + L. and P. XI, 1401. + +Footnote 205: + + L. and P. XII (1), 7. + +Footnote 206: + + L. and P. XI, 1299 (ii). + +Footnote 207: + + See above, chap. III. + +Footnote 208: + + L. and P. XI, 1299. + +Footnote 209: + + L. and P. XII (1), 7. + +Footnote 210: + + Ibid. 491. + +Footnote 211: + + L. and P. XII (1), 115. + +Footnote 212: + + Ibid. 687 (2); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit., no. xxii. + +Footnote 213: + + L. and P. XII (1), 18. + +Footnote 214: + + Ibid. 71–2. + +Footnote 215: + + Ibid. 788. + +Footnote 216: + + Ibid. 11. + +Footnote 217: + + Ibid. 116. + +Footnote 218: + + L. and P. XII (1), 67. + +Footnote 219: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 88). + +Footnote 220: + + Ibid. 192, 201 (p. 91). + +Footnote 221: + + Ibid. 64. + +Footnote 222: + + Ibid. 1036. + +Footnote 223: + + Ibid. 64, 201 (p. 85). + +Footnote 224: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 88). + +Footnote 225: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 92); see above, chap. XI, note A. + +Footnote 226: + + L. and P. XII (1), 56. + +Footnote 227: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 89). + +Footnote 228: + + Ibid. 891. + +Footnote 229: + + Ibid. 201. + +Footnote 230: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 85). + +Footnote 231: + + Cox, Churchwardens’ Accounts (the Antiquary’s Books), chap. XVIII. + +Footnote 232: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 87). + +Footnote 233: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 86). + +Footnote 234: + + Ibid. 23. + +Footnote 235: + + Ibid. 43. + +Footnote 236: + + Ibid. 46. + +Footnote 237: + + Ibid. 44. + +Footnote 238: + + L. and P. XII (1), 45. + +Footnote 239: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 86); see note D at end of chapter. + +Footnote 240: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 88). + +Footnote 241: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 86). + +Footnote 242: + + See above, chap. XIV. + +Footnote 243: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 86). + +Footnote 244: + + Ibid. 56. + +Footnote 245: + + Ibid. 64. + +Footnote 246: + + Ibid. 1175; see note E at end of chapter. + +Footnote 247: + + L. and P. XII (1), 67; extracts in Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 248: + + L. and P. XII (1), 26. + +Footnote 249: + + Ibid. 1175. + +Footnote 250: + + L. and P. XII (1), 67; extracts printed by Froude, op. cit. chap. + XIII. + +Footnote 251: + + L. and P. XII (1), 68. + +Footnote 252: + + Ibid. 81; printed in full, Everett-Green, Letters of Royal and + Illustrious Ladies, II, no. cxliv. + +Footnote 253: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 89). + +Footnote 254: + + L. and P. XII (1), 84; printed in full, State Papers, I, 524. + +Footnote 255: + + L. and P. XII (1), 66. + +Footnote 256: + + Ibid. 90. + +Footnote 257: + + Ibid. 96. + +Footnote 258: + + L. and P. XI, 1410 (1) and (3). + +Footnote 259: + + L. and P. XII (1), 97. + +Footnote 260: + + Gower, The Tower of London, I, chap. I. + +Footnote 261: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1119. + +Footnote 262: + + Ibid. 1206. + +Footnote 263: + + Ibid. 392. + +Footnote 264: + + Spanish Chron. ed. Hume, chap. XVII. + +Footnote 265: + + L. and P. XII (1), 67. + +Footnote 266: + + Ibid. 1175. + +Footnote 267: + + See above, chap. IX. + +Footnote 268: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 499). + +Footnote 269: + + See above, chap. XVI. + +Footnote 270: + + L. and P. XI, 1438. + +Footnote 271: + + L. and P. XII (1), 534. + +Footnote 272: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 499). + +Footnote 273: + + See above, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 274: + + L. and P. XII (1), 533. + +Footnote 275: + + Ibid. 145. + +Footnote 276: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 499). + +Footnote 277: + + Ibid. 145. + +Footnote 278: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 92). + +Footnote 279: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 499). + +Footnote 280: + + Ibid. 534, 1087 (p. 499). + +Footnote 281: + + Ibid. 533. + +Footnote 282: + + Tonge, op. cit. 71. + +Footnote 283: + + L. and P. XII (1), 6; printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 339. + +Footnote 284: + + See above, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 285: + + L. and P. XII (1), 65. + +Footnote 286: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 92); cf. Tawney, op. cit. pp. 197–8. + +Footnote 287: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 100). + +Footnote 288: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 102). + +Footnote 289: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 100). + +Footnote 290: + + Ibid. 849 (p. 382). + +Footnote 291: + + Ibid. 6; printed Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 339. + +Footnote 292: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 87). + +Footnote 293: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 95). + +Footnote 294: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 87). + +Footnote 295: + + Ibid. 534. + +Footnote 296: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 86). + +Footnote 297: + + Ibid. 65. + +Footnote 298: + + Ibid. 201 (pp. 100, 101). + +Footnote 299: + + Ibid. 201 (pp. 99, 100). + +Footnote 300: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 91). + +Footnote 301: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 99). + +Footnote 302: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 102). + +Footnote 303: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 99). + +Footnote 304: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 92). + +Footnote 305: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 495). + +Footnote 306: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 86). + +Footnote 307: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 86). + +Footnote 308: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 92). + +Footnote 309: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 500). + +Footnote 310: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 92). + +Footnote 311: + + See above, chap. XIV. + +Footnote 312: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 97). + +Footnote 313: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 500). + +Footnote 314: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 99). + +Footnote 315: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (pp. 99, 101, 102). + +Footnote 316: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 96). + +Footnote 317: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 95). + +Footnote 318: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 96). + +Footnote 319: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 94). + +Footnote 320: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 87). + +Footnote 321: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 88). + +Footnote 322: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 87). + +Footnote 323: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 88). + +Footnote 324: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 95). + +Footnote 325: + + See note A at end of chapter. + +Footnote 326: + + L. and P. _XII_ (1), 201 (p. 88). + +Footnote 327: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 89). + +Footnote 328: + + Ibid. 141. + +Footnote 329: + + Ibid. 466. + +Footnote 330: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 93). + +Footnote 331: + + Ibid. 141. + +Footnote 332: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 89). + +Footnote 333: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 93). + +Footnote 334: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 97). + +Footnote 335: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 95). + +Footnote 336: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (p. 93). + +Footnote 337: + + Ibid. 141, 142. + +Footnote 338: + + See above, chap. VIII. + +Footnote 339: + + L. and P. XII (1), 142. + +Footnote 340: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 93). + +Footnote 341: + + Ibid. 141. + +Footnote 342: + + L. and P. XII (1), 142. + +Footnote 343: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 93). + +Footnote 344: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 95). + +Footnote 345: + + Ibid. 1023, cf. 139, 532. + +Footnote 346: + + See below. + +Footnote 347: + + L. and P. XII (1), 148; printed in full, Longstaff, A Leaf from the + Pilgrimage of Grace, p. 9 n. + +Footnote 348: + + L. and P. XII (1), 730 (2). + +Footnote 349: + + Ibid. 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. chap. V. + +Footnote 350: + + L. and P. XII (1) 369; cf. Ibid. 730 (2). + +Footnote 351: + + See note B at end of chapter. + +Footnote 352: + + L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. + chap. V. See note C at end of chapter. + +Footnote 353: + + L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. + chap. V; L. and P. XII (1), 578. + +Footnote 354: + + L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. + chap. V. + +Footnote 355: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1019, 1020 (ii). + +Footnote 356: + + L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. + chap. V. + +Footnote 357: + + L. and P. XII (1), 147. + +Footnote 358: + + L. and P. _XII_ (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. + cit. chap. V. + +Footnote 359: + + L. and P. XII (1), 730 (2). + +Footnote 360: + + Ibid. 104. + +Footnote 361: + + Ibid. 102. + +Footnote 362: + + Ibid. 103; printed in full, Longstaff, A Leaf from the Pilgrimage of + Grace, and by Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIV. + +Footnote 363: + + L. and P. XII (1), 146. + +Footnote 364: + + Ibid. 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. chap. V. + +Footnote 365: + + L. and P. XII (1), 112. + +Footnote 366: + + L. and P. XII (1), 115. + +Footnote 367: + + Ibid. 135; see note D at end of chapter. + +Footnote 368: + + L. and P. XII (1), 730 (2). + +Footnote 369: + + Ibid. 145. + +Footnote 370: + + Ibid. 174. + +Footnote 371: + + Ibid. 137; see note E at end of chapter. + +Footnote 372: + + L. and P. XII (1), 146. + +Footnote 373: + + L. and P. XII (1), 730 (2). + +Footnote 374: + + Ibid. 174. + +Footnote 375: + + Ibid. 161. + +Footnote 376: + + Ibid. 177. + +Footnote 377: + + Ibid. 143. + +Footnote 378: + + Ibid. 177. + +Footnote 379: + + Ibid. 144. + +Footnote 380: + + Ibid. 143. + +Footnote 381: + + Ibid. 174. + +Footnote 382: + + L. and P. XII (1), 113. + +Footnote 383: + + Ibid. 174. + +Footnote 384: + + Ibid. 140, 174, 179. + +Footnote 385: + + Ibid. 154–162. + +Footnote 386: + + Ibid. 174, 369; see note F at end of chapter. + +Footnote 387: + + Tonge, op. cit. 25. + +Footnote 388: + + L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. + chap. V. + +Footnote 389: + + L. and P. XII (1), 161. + +Footnote 390: + + Ibid. 164. + +Footnote 391: + + Ibid. 1087 (pp. 494–5). + +Footnote 392: + + Ibid. 543, 1277 (iii). + +Footnote 393: + + Ibid. 1011. + +Footnote 394: + + Ibid. 1087 (pp. 494–5). + +Footnote 395: + + Ibid. 136. + +Footnote 396: + + Ibid. 141, 142. + +Footnote 397: + + L. and P. XI, 1285. + +Footnote 398: + + L. and P. XII (1), 159, 169, 170, 171, 177, 178. + +Footnote 399: + + Ibid. 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. chap. V. + +Footnote 400: + + L. and P. XII (1), 234. + +Footnote 401: + + Ibid. 271. + +Footnote 402: + + Ibid. 234–235. + +Footnote 403: + + L. and P. XII (1), 174. + +Footnote 404: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 405: + + Ibid. 139, 217. + +Footnote 406: + + Ibid. 148; printed in full, Longstaff, op. cit. + +Footnote 407: + + L. and P. XII (1), 151. + +Footnote 408: + + Ibid. 345. + +Footnote 409: + + Ibid. 148. + +Footnote 410: + + Ibid. 362. + +Footnote 411: + + Ibid. 138. + +Footnote 412: + + Ibid. 253. + +Footnote 413: + + L. and P. XII (1), 163. + +Footnote 414: + + Ibid. 164. + +Footnote 415: + + Ibid. 169. + +Footnote 416: + + Ibid. 173. + +Footnote 417: + + Ibid. 176; Star Chamber Proceedings, Hen. VIII, bdle. XIX, no. 393. + +Footnote 418: + + L. and P. XII (1), 140. + +Footnote 419: + + Ibid. 176. + +Footnote 420: + + Ibid. 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. chap. V. + +Footnote 421: + + L. and P. XII (1), 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, + chap. IX. + +Footnote 422: + + L. and P. XII (1), 467; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, + Append. no. liv. + +Footnote 423: + + L. and P. XII (1), 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, + chap. IX. + +Footnote 424: + + L. and P. XII (1), 220; printed in full, Raine, Mem. of Hexham + Priory (Surtees Soc.) I, Append. p. cxlvi. + +Footnote 425: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 497). + +Footnote 426: + + Ibid. 410. + +Footnote 427: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (pp. 87–88). + +Footnote 428: + + See note G at end of chapter. + +Footnote 429: + + L. and P. XII (1), 201 (pp. 88–94). + +Footnote 430: + + Ibid. 201. + +Footnote 431: + + Ibid. 338. + +Footnote 432: + + Ibid. 410. + +Footnote 433: + + Ibid. 338. + +Footnote 434: + + Ibid. 292. + +Footnote 435: + + Ibid. 201 (pp. 98–102). + +Footnote 436: + + See above, chap. XVI. + +Footnote 437: + + L. and P. XII (1), 218. + +Footnote 438: + + Ibid. 247. + +Footnote 439: + + Harland, The Monastery of Sawley, p. 3. + +Footnote 440: + + L. and P. XII (1), 491. + +Footnote 441: + + Ibid. 1034. + +Footnote 442: + + Ibid. 491. + +Footnote 443: + + L. and P. XII (1), 393; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. + chap. IX. + +Footnote 444: + + L. and P. XII (1), 247, 490. + +Footnote 445: + + Ibid. 491. + +Footnote 446: + + Ibid. 490. + +Footnote 447: + + Ibid. 491. + +Footnote 448: + + See above, chap. VII. + +Footnote 449: + + L. and P. XII (1), 491. + +Footnote 450: + + Ibid. 490. + +Footnote 451: + + Ibid. 491. + +Footnote 452: + + See below, chap. XVIII. + +Footnote 453: + + L. and P. XI, 785; printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. cit. I, + Append. li; see note H at end of chapter. + +Footnote 454: + + L. and P. XII (1), 490, 1034. + +Footnote 455: + + Archaeological Journal, XIV, 331. + +Footnote 456: + + L. and P. XII (1), 533. + +Footnote 457: + + Ibid. 234. + +Footnote 458: + + L. and P. XII (1), 533. + +Footnote 459: + + Ibid. 234. + +Footnote 460: + + Ibid. 810, 870. + +Footnote 461: + + Ibid. 234, 810, 870. + +Footnote 462: + + Ibid. 234. + +Footnote 463: + + Ibid. 235. + +Footnote 464: + + Ibid. 248. + +Footnote 465: + + Ibid. 227, 228. + +Footnote 466: + + Ibid. 279. + +Footnote 467: + + L. and P. XII (1), 169, 170, 183, 197. + +Footnote 468: + + Ibid. 208. + +Footnote 469: + + Ibid. 226. + +Footnote 470: + + Ibid. 169. + +Footnote 471: + + Ibid. 226. + +Footnote 472: + + Ibid. 134. + +Footnote 473: + + Ibid. 209; printed in full, State Papers, I, 529, and Longstaff, A + Leaf from the Pilgrimage of Grace. + +Footnote 474: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 497). + +Footnote 475: + + L. and P. XII (1), 113. + +Footnote 476: + + Ibid. 1130. + +Footnote 477: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1130. + +Footnote 478: + + Ibid. 848 (ii) (10). + +Footnote 479: + + Ibid. 113. + +Footnote 480: + + Ibid. 191. + +Footnote 481: + + L. and P. XII (1), 698 (3). + +Footnote 482: + + Ibid. 281. + +Footnote 483: + + Ibid. 247. + +Footnote 484: + + L. and P. XII (1), 280. + +Footnote 485: + + State Papers, I, 526 n. + +Footnote 486: + + L. and P. XII (1), 200; printed in full, State Papers, I, 526. + +Footnote 487: + + L. and P. XII (1), 66. + +Footnote 488: + + L. and P. XII (1), 259; printed in full, State Papers, I, 259, and + in part by Surtees, Hist. of Dur. sub Darlington, and Longstaff, + Hist. of Darlington (misdated 1538). + +Footnote 489: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 568. + +Footnote 490: + + L. and P. XI, 1408. + +Footnote 491: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 568. + +Footnote 492: + + L. and P. XII (1), 66. + +Footnote 493: + + Ibid. 1083. + +Footnote 494: + + Ibid. 163 (2); see above, chap. XII, note F. + +Footnote 495: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1083. + +Footnote 496: + + Ibid. 201 (p. 92). + +Footnote 497: + + Ibid. 1087 (pp. 494–5). + +Footnote 498: + + Ibid. 1083. + +Footnote 499: + + 15 January. + +Footnote 500: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 497). + +Footnote 501: + + Ibid. 174. + +Footnote 502: + + Ibid. 161. + +Footnote 503: + + Ibid. 202, 292. + +Footnote 504: + + L. and P. XII (1), 32. + +Footnote 505: + + Royal Hist. Soc. Trans. (New Ser.) XVIII, p. 197. + +Footnote 506: + + L. and P. XII (1), 98. + +Footnote 507: + + L. and P. XII (1), 98 (4) (6) (7). + +Footnote 508: + + Ibid. 98 (8). + +Footnote 509: + + Ibid. 98 (3). + +Footnote 510: + + Ibid. 97. + +Footnote 511: + + Ibid. 96, 99, 100. + +Footnote 512: + + Ibid. 101. + +Footnote 513: + + L. and P. XII (1), 200; printed in full, State Papers, I, 526. + +Footnote 514: + + L. and P. XII (1), 198. + +Footnote 515: + + Ibid. 252. + +Footnote 516: + + Ibid. 216, 252. + +Footnote 517: + + Ibid. 292. + +Footnote 518: + + L. and P. XII (1), 253. + +Footnote 519: + + Ibid. 291. + +Footnote 520: + + See below, chap. XXI. + +Footnote 521: + + L. and P. XII (1), 315. + +Footnote 522: + + Ibid. 259, 294; the former printed in full, State Papers, I, 533. + +Footnote 523: + + L. and P. XII (1), 319. + +Footnote 524: + + Ibid. 319, 321. + +Footnote 525: + + Ibid. 318; see above, chap. IV. + +Footnote 526: + + L. and P. XII (1), 337; printed in full, State Papers, I, 534. + +Footnote 527: + + L. and P. XII (1), 319. + +Footnote 528: + + L. and P. XII (1), 185; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. XIX. + +Footnote 529: + + L. and P. XII (1), 259; printed in full, State Papers, I, 530. + +Footnote 530: + + L. and P. XII (1), 322. + +Footnote 531: + + Ibid. 337; printed in full, State Papers, I, 534. + +Footnote 532: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1012. + +Footnote 533: + + L. and P. XII (1), 914, 959, 965. + +Footnote 534: + + Ibid. 1035. + +Footnote 535: + + Ibid. 1023 (ii). + +Footnote 536: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1012. + +Footnote 537: + + Ibid. 173. + +Footnote 538: + + Ibid. 1012. + +Footnote 539: + + Ibid. 1035; see note A at end of chapter. + +Footnote 540: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1012. + +Footnote 541: + + L. and P. XII (1), 336. + +Footnote 542: + + Ibid. 337; printed in full, State Papers, I, 534. + +Footnote 543: + + L. and P. XII (1), 349. + +Footnote 544: + + Ibid. 362. + +Footnote 545: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 546: + + L. and P. XII (1), 381. + +Footnote 547: + + Ibid. 401. + +Footnote 548: + + Wilfred Holme, The Downfall of Rebellion. + +Footnote 549: + + L. and P. XII (1), 401. + +Footnote 550: + + Ibid. 416 (2). + +Footnote 551: + + Ibid. 1083. + +Footnote 552: + + Ibid. 416 (2). + +Footnote 553: + + L. and P. XII (1), 775. + +Footnote 554: + + Ibid. 378. + +Footnote 555: + + Ibid. 416. + +Footnote 556: + + Ibid. 408. + +Footnote 557: + + Ibid. 416. + +Footnote 558: + + See above, chap. XVII. + +Footnote 559: + + L. and P. XII (1), 687 (2); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. + xxii. + +Footnote 560: + + L. and P. XII (1), 185; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. xix. + +Footnote 561: + + L. and P. XII (1), 336. + +Footnote 562: + + L. and P. XII (1), 185; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. xix. + +Footnote 563: + + L. and P. XII (1), 416 (2). + +Footnote 564: + + Ibid. 419, 439, 687 (2). + +Footnote 565: + + Ibid. 411, from original at P. R. O. + +Footnote 566: + + Ibid. 914. + +Footnote 567: + + L. and P. XII (1), 185; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. xix. + +Footnote 568: + + Wilfred Holme, The Downfall of Rebellion. + +Footnote 569: + + L. and P. XII (1), 71, 72. + +Footnote 570: + + Wilfred Holme, op. cit. + +Footnote 571: + + L. and P. XII (1), 520. + +Footnote 572: + + Ibid. 419. + +Footnote 573: + + L. and P. XII (1), 439. + +Footnote 574: + + Ibid. 426; printed in full, Raine, Mem. of Hexham Priory (Surtees + Soc.), I, Append. p. cxlix. + +Footnote 575: + + L. and P. XII (1), 439. + +Footnote 576: + + L. and P. XII (1), 427. + +Footnote 577: + + Ibid. 1259; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. nos. xxiv-xxvii. + +Footnote 578: + + Wilfred Holme, op. cit.; L. and P. XII (1), 448, 478–9, 520; see + note B at end of chapter. + +Footnote 579: + + L. and P. XII (1), 992. + +Footnote 580: + + Ibid. 1216. + +Footnote 581: + + Ibid. 1215. + +Footnote 582: + + Ibid. 1217 (1) and (2); (2) printed in full, Raine, op. cit. I, + Append. p. clx. + +Footnote 583: + + L. and P. XII (1), 448. + +Footnote 584: + + Ibid. 492. + +Footnote 585: + + Sir Wm. Paulet. + +Footnote 586: + + L. and P. XII (1), 468. + +Footnote 587: + + Ibid. 469. + +Footnote 588: + + L. and P. XII (1), 473. + +Footnote 589: + + Ibid. 532. + +Footnote 590: + + Ibid. 478. + +Footnote 591: + + Ibid. 498; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. XX. + +Footnote 592: + + L. and P. XII (1), 439. + +Footnote 593: + + Ibid. 498. + +Footnote 594: + + Wilfred Holme, op. cit. + +Footnote 595: + + L. and P. XII (1), 498; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. XX. + +Footnote 596: + + L. and P. XII (1), 478. + +Footnote 597: + + Ibid. 479; printed in full, State Papers, I, 537, and Raine, op. + cit. I, Append. p. cl. + +Footnote 598: + + L. and P. XII (1), 498; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. XX. + +Footnote 599: + + Gasquet, op. cit. II, chap. IV. + +Footnote 600: + + See below. + +Footnote 601: + + Nicolson and Burn, op. cit. I, p. 569; see Wilson, op. cit. p. 14 n. + +Footnote 602: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1259; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. nos. + xxiv-xxvii, and Raine, op. cit. I, Append. p. cliv; see note C at + end of chapter. + +Footnote 603: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1214 (2), 1246. + +Footnote 604: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1156; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. I, Append. + p. clxi. + +Footnote 605: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1257. + +Footnote 606: + + Ibid. 546. + +Footnote 607: + + See below, chap. XXI. + +Footnote 608: + + L. and P. XII (1), 577. + +Footnote 609: + + Ibid. 609. + +Footnote 610: + + Ibid. 617. + +Footnote 611: + + Ibid. 558; printed in full, Miscellaneous State Papers (ed. the Earl + of Hardwicke), I, p. 38. + +Footnote 612: + + L. and P. XII (1), 609. + +Footnote 613: + + Ibid. 594. + +Footnote 614: + + L. and P. XII (1), 615. + +Footnote 615: + + Ibid. 478 (2). + +Footnote 616: + + Ibid. 615–6. + +Footnote 617: + + Ibid. 609. + +Footnote 618: + + See above, chap. XII. + +Footnote 619: + + See note E at end of chapter. + +Footnote 620: + + L. and P. XII (1), 666. + +Footnote 621: + + Ibid. 350, 371. + +Footnote 622: + + See above, chap. VIII. + +Footnote 623: + + L. and P. XII (1), 383. + +Footnote 624: + + L. and P. XII (1), 391. + +Footnote 625: + + Ibid. 390. + +Footnote 626: + + Ibid. 408. + +Footnote 627: + + Ibid. 470. + +Footnote 628: + + L. and P. XII (1), 506. + +Footnote 629: + + Ibid. 699. + +Footnote 630: + + Ibid. 303. + +Footnote 631: + + L. and P. XII (1), 698. + +Footnote 632: + + L. and P. XII (1), 698 (1). + +Footnote 633: + + Ibid. 698 (2). + +Footnote 634: + + Ibid. 698 (3). + +Footnote 635: + + Ibid. 852; see note D at end of chapter. + +Footnote 636: + + L. and P. XII (1), 698, 710, 712. + +Footnote 637: + + Ibid. 730–1. + +Footnote 638: + + Ibid. 847 (12); 698 (3). + +Footnote 639: + + Ibid. 777. + +Footnote 640: + + See above, chap. III. + +Footnote 641: + + L. and P. XII (1), 777, 1172. + +Footnote 642: + + Ibid. 864; printed in full, Miscellaneous State Papers (ed. + Hardwicke), I, p. 46. + +Footnote 643: + + L. and P. XII (1), 916. + +Footnote 644: + + Ibid. 942. + +Footnote 645: + + L. and P. XII (1), 731. + +Footnote 646: + + Ibid. 809. + +Footnote 647: + + Ibid. 777. + +Footnote 648: + + Ibid. 810. + +Footnote 649: + + Ibid. 864; printed in full, Miscellaneous State Papers (ed. + Hardwicke), I, 46. + +Footnote 650: + + L. and P. XII (1), 917–8. + +Footnote 651: + + Ibid. 810. + +Footnote 652: + + Ibid. 902, 916. + +Footnote 653: + + L. and P. XII (1), 863. + +Footnote 654: + + Ibid. 478 (ii), 918. + +Footnote 655: + + Ibid. 918. + +Footnote 656: + + Ibid. 942. + +Footnote 657: + + Ibid. 991. + +Footnote 658: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1025. + +Footnote 659: + + Ibid. 1156. + +Footnote 660: + + Ibid. 1207; printed in full, Deputy Keeper’s Report, III, Append. + II, p. 247. The Yorkshire indictment is printed by De Fonblanque, + op. cit. I, Append. LV. + +Footnote 661: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1156; printed in full, Raine, Mem. of Hexham + Priory (Surtees Soc.) I, Append. p. clxi. + +Footnote 662: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1172. + +Footnote 663: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1172; see note F at end of chapter. + +Footnote 664: + + L. and P. XII (1), 778. + +Footnote 665: + + Ibid. 777. + +Footnote 666: + + Ibid. 1172. + +Footnote 667: + + V. C. H. Cumberland, II, p. 171. + +Footnote 668: + + Ibid. p. 170. + +Footnote 669: + + Ibid. p. 171. + +Footnote 670: + + Gasquet, op. cit. II, chap. V; cf. V. C. H. Cumberland, II, p. 170. + +Footnote 671: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1192. + +Footnote 672: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1172. + +Footnote 673: + + Ibid. 1307. + +Footnote 674: + + Ibid. 1257. + +Footnote 675: + + L. and P. XII (2), 34. + +Footnote 676: + + Gasquet, op. cit. II, chap. V. + +Footnote 677: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1307 (2). + +Footnote 678: + + L. and P. XII (2), 59; printed in full, Wright, Three Chapters of + Letters relating to the Suppression of the Monasteries (Camden + Soc.), p. 158. + +Footnote 679: + + L. and P. XII (2), 92. + +Footnote 680: + + L. and P. XII (1), 302. + +Footnote 681: + + Ibid. 86. + +Footnote 682: + + Ibid. 457. + +Footnote 683: + + Ibid. 302. + +Footnote 684: + + L. and P. XII (1), 520. + +Footnote 685: + + Ibid. 630; printed in full, Beck, Annales Furnesienses, p. 343. + +Footnote 686: + + L. and P. XII (1), 621. + +Footnote 687: + + Ibid. 218, 490. + +Footnote 688: + + Ibid. 491. + +Footnote 689: + + Ibid. 1034. + +Footnote 690: + + Sanders, De Origine ac Progressu Schism. Angl., lib. I, p. 129 (ed. + 1588). + +Footnote 691: + + L. and P. XII (1), 632. + +Footnote 692: + + Whitaker, Whalley and the Honour of Clitheroe, I, 108–9 (ed. Nichols + and Lyons). + +Footnote 693: + + Stow, Chronicle, ann. 1537. + +Footnote 694: + + L. and P. XII (1), 706, 896; 706 printed in full, State Papers, I, + p. 541. + +Footnote 695: + + L. and P. XII (1), 630; printed in full, Beck, op. cit., p. 343. + +Footnote 696: + + L. and P. XII (1), 666. + +Footnote 697: + + Ibid. 1034. + +Footnote 698: + + Harleian MS. no. 112, B.M.; see note A at end of chapter. + +Footnote 699: + + Harland, The Monastery of Salley, p. 48. + +Footnote 700: + + L. and P. XII (1), 632. + +Footnote 701: + + Ibid. 825, 863 (3). + +Footnote 702: + + Ibid. 632. + +Footnote 703: + + Ibid. 668; printed in full, State Papers, I, p. 540. + +Footnote 704: + + L. and P. XII (1), 695; printed in full, Beck, op. cit. p. 344. + +Footnote 705: + + L. and P. XII (1), 652. + +Footnote 706: + + Ibid. 841–2. + +Footnote 707: + + Ibid. 706; printed in full, State Papers, I, p. 541. + +Footnote 708: + + L. and P. XII (1), 716. + +Footnote 709: + + Ibid. 840; printed in full, Beck, op. cit. p. 347. + +Footnote 710: + + See above, chap. IV. + +Footnote 711: + + L. and P. XII (1), 841–2; 841 (4) printed in full, Beck, op. cit. p. + 342. + +Footnote 712: + + L. and P. XII (1), 832; facsimile in Beck, op. cit. pp. 346–7. + +Footnote 713: + + L. and P. XII (1), 840; printed in full, Beck, op. cit. p. 347. + +Footnote 714: + + L. and P. XII (1), 896. + +Footnote 715: + + Ibid. 832, 880, 903; the two first in full, Beck, op. cit. pp. 346, + 350. + +Footnote 716: + + L. and P. XII (2), 205–6; printed in full, Beck, op. cit. p. 356. + +Footnote 717: + + L. and P. XI, 1014, 1065. + +Footnote 718: + + L. and P. XII (1), 706; printed in full, State Papers, I, 541. + +Footnote 719: + + L. and P. XII (1), 878. + +Footnote 720: + + Ibid. 853. + +Footnote 721: + + L. and P. XII (1), 878. + +Footnote 722: + + Ibid. 621. + +Footnote 723: + + Ibid. 411. + +Footnote 724: + + Ibid. 878; see above, chap. XV. + +Footnote 725: + + L. and P. XII (1), 785. + +Footnote 726: + + Ibid. 896. + +Footnote 727: + + Ibid. 970. + +Footnote 728: + + L. and P. XI, 672. + +Footnote 729: + + Ibid. 673, 728. + +Footnote 730: + + L. and P. XII (1), 717. + +Footnote 731: + + Ibid. 728. + +Footnote 732: + + Ibid. 764. + +Footnote 733: + + Ibid. 780 (2); printed in full, State Papers, I, p. 463. + +Footnote 734: + + L. and P. XI, 789. + +Footnote 735: + + Ibid. 772. + +Footnote 736: + + Ibid. 805. + +Footnote 737: + + Ibid. 828. + +Footnote 738: + + Ibid. 834; printed in full, State Papers, I, p. 471. + +Footnote 739: + + L. and P. XI, 838. + +Footnote 740: + + Ibid. 842 (3), (4). + +Footnote 741: + + L. and P. XII (1), 843. + +Footnote 742: + + Ibid. 842; printed in full, State Papers, I, 490. + +Footnote 743: + + L. and P. XII (1), 853. + +Footnote 744: + + Ibid. 880. + +Footnote 745: + + Ibid. 888. + +Footnote 746: + + Ibid. 909. + +Footnote 747: + + Ibid. 938 (2). + +Footnote 748: + + Ibid. 1086. + +Footnote 749: + + See above, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 750: + + L. and P. XI, 1155 (5) (ii). + +Footnote 751: + + Ibid. 967–75. + +Footnote 752: + + Ibid. 1061, 1224 (2). + +Footnote 753: + + Ibid. 1155 (5) (ii). + +Footnote 754: + + Ibid. 1267, 1283. + +Footnote 755: + + L. and P. XII (1), 70. + +Footnote 756: + + Ibid. 946 (3). + +Footnote 757: + + Ibid. 420, 490, 491. + +Footnote 758: + + Ibid. 420. + +Footnote 759: + + Ibid. 590. + +Footnote 760: + + Ibid. 591. + +Footnote 761: + + L. and P. XI, 780 (2); printed in full, State Papers, I, p. 463. + +Footnote 762: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1036 (iv). + +Footnote 763: + + L. and P. XII (1), 590. + +Footnote 764: + + Ibid. 581 (ii). + +Footnote 765: + + See note B at end of chapter. + +Footnote 766: + + L. and P. XI, 973. + +Footnote 767: + + Ibid. 828 (viii) (ix) (x). + +Footnote 768: + + L. and P. XII (1), 590, 591; Wriothesley, op. cit. I, 61. + +Footnote 769: + + L. and P. XII (1), 590, 591. + +Footnote 770: + + Ibid. 581 (i). + +Footnote 771: + + See above, chaps, IV and XIII. + +Footnote 772: + + L. and P. XII (1), 591. + +Footnote 773: + + L. and P. XII (1), 70 (vii). + +Footnote 774: + + Ibid. 591. + +Footnote 775: + + Ibid. 608. + +Footnote 776: + + Ibid. 639. + +Footnote 777: + + Ibid. 676, 677, 700. + +Footnote 778: + + L. and P. XI, 843, 970; XII (1), 19, 69, 70 (1). + +Footnote 779: + + L. and P. XI, 827 (2), 828 (xi), 971, 975 (fo. 3); XII (1), 70 (ii). + +Footnote 780: + + L. and P. XI, 842 (4), 967 (i); XII (1), 70 (iii). + +Footnote 781: + + L. and P. XI, 747, 772, 853; XII (1), 70 (vi). + +Footnote 782: + + L. and P. XI, 827 (ii), 967 (viii); XII (1), 70 (vii). + +Footnote 783: + + L. and P. XI, 842 (4); XII (1), 70 (viii). + +Footnote 784: + + L. and P. XI, 568, 975 (fo. 2); XII (1), 70 (ix). + +Footnote 785: + + L. and P. XI, 828 (2), 842 (4); XII (1), 70 (x), A, B. + +Footnote 786: + + L. and P. XI, 828 (i, 2), 975 (fo. 1); XII (1), 70 (xi), C. + +Footnote 787: + + L. and P. XI, 843, 967 (ii), 975 (fo. 1), 1224 (2); XII (1), 70 + (xii). + +Footnote 788: + + L. and P. XI, 975 (fo. 8); XII (1), 380, 481. + +Footnote 789: + + L. and P. XII (1), 734 (3); printed in full, Deputy-Keeper’s Report, + III, Append. ii, p. 245. + +Footnote 790: + + Grey Friars’ Chron. (Camden Soc.), p. 39. + +Footnote 791: + + L. and P. XII (1), 70 (iv). + +Footnote 792: + + Ibid. 677. + +Footnote 793: + + Brenan and Statham, op. cit. I, chap. III; Henry Howard, Earl of + Northampton, A Defensative against the Poison of Supposed Prophecies + (1583). + +Footnote 794: + + L. and P. XII (1), 677. + +Footnote 795: + + Ibid. 702. + +Footnote 796: + + L. and P. XI, 725. + +Footnote 797: + + Ibid. 805. + +Footnote 798: + + L. and P. XI, 805; XII (1), 70 (v), (viii). + +Footnote 799: + + Ibid. 392; printed in full, Cox, op. cit. + +Footnote 800: + + L. and P. XII (1), 70 (viii). + +Footnote 801: + + Trevelyan, England in the Age of Wycliff, chap. V. + +Footnote 802: + + L. and P. XI, 728, 764, 1043, 1084; cf. XII (1), 697. + +Footnote 803: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1084. + +Footnote 804: + + Ibid. 870. + +Footnote 805: + + Ibid. 1084. + +Footnote 806: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 495). + +Footnote 807: + + Ibid. 1084. + +Footnote 808: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 494). + +Footnote 809: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 810: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 495). + +Footnote 811: + + Ibid. 1084. + +Footnote 812: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 494). + +Footnote 813: + + See note C at end of chapter. + +Footnote 814: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1083. + +Footnote 815: + + L. and P. XII (2), 12 (1). + +Footnote 816: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1084. + +Footnote 817: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 497); the passage is partly obliterated. + +Footnote 818: + + L. and P. XII (1), 543. + +Footnote 819: + + Ibid. 1083. + +Footnote 820: + + L. and P. XII (2), 248, 741, 828, 850; 828 printed in full, State + Papers, V, p. 109. + +Footnote 821: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1084. + +Footnote 822: + + L. and P. XII (2), 12 (1). + +Footnote 823: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1084. + +Footnote 824: + + L. and P. XII (2), 12 (1). + +Footnote 825: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1084. + +Footnote 826: + + Ibid. 870. + +Footnote 827: + + Ibid. 918. + +Footnote 828: + + Ibid. 902. + +Footnote 829: + + L. and P. XII (2) 12 (1). + +Footnote 830: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1085. + +Footnote 831: + + L. and P. XI, 622. + +Footnote 832: + + L. and P. XII (2), 181; printed in full, Archaeologia, XVII, 294. + +Footnote 833: + + L. and P. XII (2), 12 (1). + +Footnote 834: + + L. and P. XI, 1356. + +Footnote 835: + + L. and P. XII (1), 725; printed in full, Ellis, Original Letters, + 3rd Ser. III. 95. + +Footnote 836: + + L. and P. XI, 1375. + +Footnote 837: + + L. and P. XI, 1393. + +Footnote 838: + + L. and P. XII (1), 256; printed in full, Cranmer’s Works (Parker + Soc.), p. 333. + +Footnote 839: + + L. and P. XII (1), 257. + +Footnote 840: + + L. and P. XI, 1404. + +Footnote 841: + + L. and P. XII (1), 193. + +Footnote 842: + + Ibid. 62. + +Footnote 843: + + Ibid. 63. + +Footnote 844: + + Ibid. 456. + +Footnote 845: + + Ibid. 808. + +Footnote 846: + + Ibid. 1148, 1271, 1272. + +Footnote 847: + + L. and P. XI, 1446. + +Footnote 848: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1202. + +Footnote 849: + + Ibid. 742 (3). + +Footnote 850: + + L. and P. XII (1), 93; printed in full, Strype, op. cit. I (2), 271. + +Footnote 851: + + L. and P. XII (1), 457. + +Footnote 852: + + Ibid. 708, 789 (ii), 790; XI, 60, which is misdated, see note in XII + (2), p. vi. + +Footnote 853: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1147 (iii, 6). + +Footnote 854: + + L. and P. XI, 1424; XII (1), 93; printed in full, Strype, op. cit. I + (2), 271. + +Footnote 855: + + L. and P. XI, 1111; xii (1), 40, 307. + +Footnote 856: + + L. and P. XI, 1357, 1377. + +Footnote 857: + + L. and P. XII (1), 308, 1147. + +Footnote 858: + + Ibid. 508, 1147. + +Footnote 859: + + Ibid. 679. + +Footnote 860: + + Ibid. 927, 941. + +Footnote 861: + + Ibid. 824, 868. + +Footnote 862: + + Ibid. 746, 755–6. + +Footnote 863: + + Ibid. 838. + +Footnote 864: + + Ibid. 256. + +Footnote 865: + + L. and P. XII (2), 908. + +Footnote 866: + + L. and P. XII (1), 957. + +Footnote 867: + + Ibid. 876, 877, 1182; printed in full, Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, + I, 387. + +Footnote 868: + + L. and P. XII (1), 212, 757–8, 1325. + +Footnote 869: + + Ibid. 79, 127, 182, 211, 264. + +Footnote 870: + + L. and P. XII (2), 357 (2) and (3). + +Footnote 871: + + L. and P. XII (1), 298. + +Footnote 872: + + Ibid. 389. + +Footnote 873: + + See above, chap. IV. + +Footnote 874: + + L. and P. XII (1), 5. + +Footnote 875: + + L. and P. XI, 1403. + +Footnote 876: + + L. and P. XII (1), 389. + +Footnote 877: + + L. and P. XI, 1403. + +Footnote 878: + + L. and P. XII (1), 389. + +Footnote 879: + + Ibid. 798. + +Footnote 880: + + Ibid. 126, 152. + +Footnote 881: + + L. and P. XI, 405. + +Footnote 882: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1001. + +Footnote 883: + + See above, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 884: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1001; see note D at end of chapter. + +Footnote 885: + + L. and P. XII (1), 685, 1000. + +Footnote 886: + + Ibid. 1001. + +Footnote 887: + + Ibid. 1126. + +Footnote 888: + + Ibid. 1127. + +Footnote 889: + + L. and P. XII (2), 595. + +Footnote 890: + + Ibid. 182 and n. + +Footnote 891: + + Cleeve. + +Footnote 892: + + L. and P. XII (1), 4. + +Footnote 893: + + Ibid. 152, 1070; see note F, chap. IV. + +Footnote 894: + + Wriothesley, op. cit. I, 61. + +Footnote 895: + + Nunney. + +Footnote 896: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1194. + +Footnote 897: + + Ibid. 1195. + +Footnote 898: + + Trevelyan, op. cit. chap. IX; Gairdner, Lollardy and the + Reformation, I, chap. I. + +Footnote 899: + + Trevelyan, loc. cit. + +Footnote 900: + + Powell, The Rising in East Anglia. + +Footnote 901: + + Trevelyan, loc. cit. + +Footnote 902: + + Russell, op. cit. Introduction. + +Footnote 903: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1268; printed in part, Russell, op. cit. + Introduction. + +Footnote 904: + + See above, chap. IV. + +Footnote 905: + + See above, chap. VI. + +Footnote 906: + + See above, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 907: + + L. and P. XII (2), 56. + +Footnote 908: + + Ibid. 21. + +Footnote 909: + + L. and P. XII (1), 424. + +Footnote 910: + + L. and P. XII (2), 150; printed in part, Russell, op. cit. + Introduction. + +Footnote 911: + + L. and P. XII (1), 32. + +Footnote 912: + + L. and P. XII (2), 13 (3). + +Footnote 913: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1125, 1300. + +Footnote 914: + + Ibid. 1056; printed in part, Russell, op. cit. Introduction. + +Footnote 915: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1125. + +Footnote 916: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1045, 1046. + +Footnote 917: + + Ibid. 1063, 1125. + +Footnote 918: + + Ibid. 1171. + +Footnote 919: + + Ibid. 1212. + +Footnote 920: + + Ibid. 1284. + +Footnote 921: + + See note E at end of chapter. + +Footnote 922: + + See above, chap. IV. + +Footnote 923: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1212; printed in part by Russell, op. cit. + Introduction. + +Footnote 924: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1284. + +Footnote 925: + + L. and P. XII (2), 56. + +Footnote 926: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1316. + +Footnote 927: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1301. + +Footnote 928: + + Russell, op. cit. Introduction. + +Footnote 929: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1300. + +Footnote 930: + + L. and P. XII (2), 56. + +Footnote 931: + + Ibid. 68. + +Footnote 932: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1300. + +Footnote 933: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1300 (3). + +Footnote 934: + + L. and P. XII (2), 13 (2). + +Footnote 935: + + L. and P. XII (1), 892 (ii). + +Footnote 936: + + Dict. Nat. Biog. art. Askew, Anne. + +Footnote 937: + + L. and P. XII (2), 189. + +Footnote 938: + + See above, chap. III. + +Footnote 939: + + See above, chap. XVIII. + +Footnote 940: + + Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XV. + +Footnote 941: + + See below, chap. XXIII. + +Footnote 942: + + Cavendish, Life of Wolsey (ed. Singer, 2nd ed.), p. 399. + +Footnote 943: + + Maitland, English Law and the Renaissance. + +Footnote 944: + + Ibid.; for the form of criminal trial at this period see Holdsworth, + Hist. of Eng. Law, II, 160, 164. + +Footnote 945: + + L. and P. XII (2), 181; printed in full, Archaeologia, XVIII, 294. + +Footnote 946: + + L. and P. XII (1), 849 (53); printed in full, De Fonblanque, op. + cit. I, append. liii. + +Footnote 947: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1062. + +Footnote 948: + + L. and P. XII (2), 19; printed in full, de Fonblanque, op. cit. I, + chap. IX. + +Footnote 949: + + L. and P. XII (2), 165; printed in full, de Fonblanque, op. cit. I, + chap. IX. + +Footnote 950: + + L. and P. XII (1), 535, 979, 1296; XII (2), 12 (2). + +Footnote 951: + + See above, chap. XIX. + +Footnote 952: + + L. and P. XII (2), 248, 583, Append. 1. + +Footnote 953: + + Ibid. 291. + +Footnote 954: + + Ibid. 356. + +Footnote 955: + + Ibid. 519. + +Footnote 956: + + Ibid. 733. + +Footnote 957: + + Ibid. 828; printed in full, State Papers, V. p. 109. + +Footnote 958: + + L. and P. XII (2), 828, 850. + +Footnote 959: + + L. and P. XI, 1380. + +Footnote 960: + + L. and P. XII (2), 14. + +Footnote 961: + + L. and P. XII (2), append. 28. + +Footnote 962: + + Ibid. 14. + +Footnote 963: + + Ibid. 101. + +Footnote 964: + + Ibid. 102 (3). + +Footnote 965: + + Ibid. 166. + +Footnote 966: + + Ibid. 665. + +Footnote 967: + + Ibid. 784. + +Footnote 968: + + Ibid. 3. + +Footnote 969: + + See above, chap. II. + +Footnote 970: + + See below, chap. XXIII. + +Footnote 971: + + L. and P. XII (1), 835, 846; printed in full, Miscellaneous State + Papers (ed. the Earl of Hardwicke), I.\, 43. + +Footnote 972: + + L. and P. XII (1), 863. + +Footnote 973: + + Ibid. 967. + +Footnote 974: + + Ibid. 991. + +Footnote 975: + + Ibid. 981. + +Footnote 976: + + Ibid. 1120. + +Footnote 977: + + See above, chap. XI. + +Footnote 978: + + L. and P. XII (1), 976. + +Footnote 979: + + Ibid. 1079. + +Footnote 980: + + L. and P. XI, 929; L. and P. XII (1), 1088. + +Footnote 981: + + L. and P. XII (2), 186. + +Footnote 982: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1207 (8). + +Footnote 983: + + _Darcy’s Letters_: L. and P. XII (1), 115, 135, 155, 162, 184. + _Evidence_: ibid. 847 (5), 848 (2) (5) (15) (16), 1087 (pp. 497–8). + +Footnote 984: + + _Levening_: L. and P. XII (1), 730, 731. _Evidence_: ibid. 848 (10), + 1087 (p. 497). + +Footnote 985: + + Ibid. 7. _Evidence_: ibid. 848 (ii) (13), 849 (6) (37), 1087 (p. + 498). + +Footnote 986: + + Ibid. 847 (13). + +Footnote 987: + + Ibid. 39. + +Footnote 988: + + Ibid. 849 (33), 974, 1087 (p. 498), 1175. See above, chap. XVII. + +Footnote 989: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 497). + +Footnote 990: + + _Delay_: ibid. 280, 295. _Evidence_: ibid. 849 (32), 1087 (p. 498). + +Footnote 991: + + _Application_: ibid. 390. _Evidence_: ibid. 848 (1), 1087 (p. 497). + +Footnote 992: + + _Evidence_: ibid. 848 (4), 1087 (p. 497). _Letter_: L. and P. XI, + 1293, illegible in the essential passage. + +Footnote 993: + + L. and P. XII (1), 848 (8). + +Footnote 994: + + Ibid. 847 (10), 848 (ii) (12), 1087 (p. 498). + +Footnote 995: + + Ibid. 840; printed in full, Beck, op. cit. 347. + +Footnote 996: + + L. and P. XII (1), 853. + +Footnote 997: + + Ibid. 878. + +Footnote 998: + + L. and P. XI, 1128; XII (1), 849 (7). + +Footnote 999: + + L. and P. XII (1), 852 (iii), 853, 900 (56) (60–64), 1022. + +Footnote 1000: + + Ibid. 900 (65–72). + +Footnote 1001: + + Ibid. 944; cf. L. and P. XI, 1086. + +Footnote 1002: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1079, 1080. + +Footnote 1003: + + Ibid. 134. + +Footnote 1004: + + Ibid. 848 (3), 849 (11) (12) (19) (20), 1087 (p. 498). + +Footnote 1005: + + Ibid. 849 (15) (45) (47); 849 (2) (p. 382); 849 (18), and L. and P. + XI, 1080; L. and P. XII (1), 848 (7), 849 (46), 1087 (p. 498), 849 + (5), and L. and P. XI, 1051. + +Footnote 1006: + + L. and P. XII (1), 849 (44) and 350; 849 (48) and 144. + +Footnote 1007: + + Ibid. 900 (73–87); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 554–5. + +Footnote 1008: + + L. and P. XII (1), 849 (3) and XI, 1128; XII (1), 852 and 852 (iv). + +Footnote 1009: + + Ibid. 797. + +Footnote 1010: + + L. and P. XII (1), 900 (45–49), 945 (48); printed in full, Eng. + Hist. Rev. V, 553, 572. + +Footnote 1011: + + L. and P. XII (1), 848 (11), 974. + +Footnote 1012: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 497), 1200. + +Footnote 1013: + + Ibid. 848, 850 (2); see note A at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1014: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1064; see L. and P. IV (1), Introduction, p. dlv; + (3), 5749–50. + +Footnote 1015: + + L. and P. XII (1), 848. + +Footnote 1016: + + Ibid. 849 (49). + +Footnote 1017: + + Ibid. 849 (50). + +Footnote 1018: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1207 (16–21); printed in full, Deputy-Keeper’s + Report III, append. II, p. 247. + +Footnote 1019: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 803. + +Footnote 1020: + + L. and P. XI, 1086. + +Footnote 1021: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1239. + +Footnote 1022: + + Ibid. 1234. + +Footnote 1023: + + L. and P. XII (2), 22, 23. + +Footnote 1024: + + Ibid. 43; XI, 1009, 1064 (2), 1065. + +Footnote 1025: + + L. and P. XII (2), 30. + +Footnote 1026: + + Ibid. 105. + +Footnote 1027: + + Ibid. 77; printed in full, State Papers, I, 551. + +Footnote 1028: + + L. and P. XII (2), 1. + +Footnote 1029: + + Ibid. 166. + +Footnote 1030: + + Wriothesley, op. cit. I, 65. + +Footnote 1031: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1078; XII (2), 313, 445; the last printed in + full, Anstis, The Order of the Garter, II, 407. + +Footnote 1032: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1129. + +Footnote 1033: + + Ibid. 905; L. and P. XII (2), 181; printed in full, Archaeologia, + XVIII, 294. + +Footnote 1034: + + L. and P. XII (1), 981. + +Footnote 1035: + + Ibid. 976, 981. + +Footnote 1036: + + See above, chap. VI. + +Footnote 1037: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1012 (4); 1087 (p. 500). + +Footnote 1038: + + Ibid. 964. + +Footnote 1039: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 501). + +Footnote 1040: + + Ibid. 1213. + +Footnote 1041: + + See above, chap. II. + +Footnote 1042: + + L. and P. XII (1), 973. + +Footnote 1043: + + Ibid. 899; printed by Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIV. + +Footnote 1044: + + L. and P. XII (1), 576. + +Footnote 1045: + + Ibid. 1207 (5), (7), (11–21); printed in full, Deputy-Keeper’s + Report, III, Append. II, p. 247. + +Footnote 1046: + + L. and P. XII (2), 143; printed in full, Nott, Lives of the Earl of + Surrey and Sir T. Wyatt, Append. XXVIII; L. and P. XII (2), 1049; + printed in full, Everett-Green, op. cit. II, no. CXLIX. + +Footnote 1047: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1252. + +Footnote 1048: + + L. and P. XII (2), 43. + +Footnote 1049: + + Ibid. 2. + +Footnote 1050: + + Ibid. 156 (2). + +Footnote 1051: + + Ibid. 926. + +Footnote 1052: + + Ibid. 156 (2). + +Footnote 1053: + + Ibid. Append. 31. + +Footnote 1054: + + L. and P. XII (2), 2. + +Footnote 1055: + + Ibid. 187 (2). + +Footnote 1056: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1199 (4). + +Footnote 1057: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1058: + + Ibid. 1207 (8); printed in full, Deputy-Keeper’s Report, III, + Append. II, p. 247; de Fonblanque, op. cit. I, app. p. lv. + +Footnote 1059: + + Grey Friars’ Chron. (Camden Soc.), p. 40. + +Footnote 1060: + + L. and P. XII (2), 181; printed in full, Archaeologia, XVIII, 294. + +Footnote 1061: + + L. and P. XII (1), 473, 533. + +Footnote 1062: + + Ibid. 533. + +Footnote 1063: + + L. and P. XII (2), 194. + +Footnote 1064: + + L. and P. XII (1), 369; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. cit. + chap. V. + +Footnote 1065: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1199 (3) (ii). + +Footnote 1066: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1067: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1324; printed in full, Milner and Benham, op. + cit. chap. V. + +Footnote 1068: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1142. + +Footnote 1069: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1070: + + Ibid. 1199 (3) (ii). + +Footnote 1071: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 365. + +Footnote 1072: + + Ibid. 568, 706–7. + +Footnote 1073: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 494). + +Footnote 1074: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1184. + +Footnote 1075: + + Ibid. 66, 164, 236, 271. + +Footnote 1076: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 976. + +Footnote 1077: + + L. and P. XII (2), 189. + +Footnote 1078: + + L. and P. XI, 1135 (2), 1295. + +Footnote 1079: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 495). + +Footnote 1080: + + Ibid. 1083. + +Footnote 1081: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 494). + +Footnote 1082: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 495). + +Footnote 1083: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1084: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 568. + +Footnote 1085: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 496), 1088. + +Footnote 1086: + + Ibid. 393; printed in full, de Fonblanque, op. cit. I, chap. IX. + +Footnote 1087: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1012 (1), 1023 (ii), 1035 (1), (iv). + +Footnote 1088: + + Ibid. 1086. + +Footnote 1089: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 496). + +Footnote 1090: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1034. + +Footnote 1091: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 496). + +Footnote 1092: + + Ibid. 1088. + +Footnote 1093: + + Ibid. 1086. + +Footnote 1094: + + Ibid. 1199 (3) (ii). + +Footnote 1095: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1096: + + Ibid. 1321; see above, chap. III. + +Footnote 1097: + + Yorks. Arch, and Top. Journ. VIII, 404. + +Footnote 1098: + + L. and P. XII (2), 181; printed in full, Archaeologia, XVIII, 294. + +Footnote 1099: + + L. and P. XII (1), 900 (47); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, + 553. + +Footnote 1100: + + L. and P. XII (1), 899, 973. + +Footnote 1101: + + Ibid. 1225. + +Footnote 1102: + + Ibid. 847 (1) (2) (11), 848 (ii), (7) (17) (18). + +Footnote 1103: + + Ibid. 145. + +Footnote 1104: + + Ibid. 146 (3). + +Footnote 1105: + + See above, chap. XVIII. + +Footnote 1106: + + L. and P. XII (1), 146 (1) (2). + +Footnote 1107: + + L. and P. XII (1), 847 (5) (6) (9), 848 (ii) (8) (9). + +Footnote 1108: + + Ibid. 1225. + +Footnote 1109: + + Ibid. 847 (3), 848 (ii) (10), 1088, 1130. + +Footnote 1110: + + See above, chap. XVII, note E. + +Footnote 1111: + + L. and P. XII (1), 730, 1087 (p. 497). + +Footnote 1112: + + Grey Friars’ Chron. (Camden Soc.), 40. + +Footnote 1113: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1199 (3) (ii). + +Footnote 1114: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1115: + + Ibid. 1225. + +Footnote 1116: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1226. + +Footnote 1117: + + L. and P. XII (2), 160. + +Footnote 1118: + + L. and P. XII (1), 712. + +Footnote 1119: + + Ibid. 1082; printed in part, Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIV. + +Footnote 1120: + + L. and P. XII (1), 846; printed in full, Miscellaneous State Papers + (ed. the Earl of Hardwicke), I, 43. + +Footnote 1121: + + L. and P. XII (1), 852, 900, 901, 945, 946, 1175; 900, 901 and 945 + are printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, 550–573. + +Footnote 1122: + + L. and P. XII (1), 946. + +Footnote 1123: + + Ibid. 1175 (3). + +Footnote 1124: + + L. and P. XII (2), 420. + +Footnote 1125: + + L. and P. XII (1), 698. + +Footnote 1126: + + Ibid. 629, 630–1, 641, 651. + +Footnote 1127: + + L. and P. XII (2), 292 (iii). + +Footnote 1128: + + L. and P. XII (1), 849 (51) (52). + +Footnote 1129: + + Ibid. 847 (8), 848 (ii, 11), 849 (3), 991. + +Footnote 1130: + + Ibid. 698 (2). + +Footnote 1131: + + Ibid. 849 (33), 974, 1119, 1175, 1206. + +Footnote 1132: + + Ibid. 847 (12), 848 (ii, 14), 698 (3). + +Footnote 1133: + + Ibid. 847 (3), 848 (ii, 10), 1087 (p. 497). + +Footnote 1134: + + Ibid. 847 (4) (5) (9). + +Footnote 1135: + + Ibid. 848 (ii, 15), 1087 (p. 497). + +Footnote 1136: + + L. and P. XII (1), 43, 848 (i, 13). + +Footnote 1137: + + Ibid. 848 (ii, 3). + +Footnote 1138: + + Ibid. 848 (ii, 4). + +Footnote 1139: + + See above, chap. XVII. + +Footnote 1140: + + L. and P. XII (1), 848 (ii). + +Footnote 1141: + + Ibid. 44. + +Footnote 1142: + + L. and P. XI, 945, 1107, 1306; XII (1), 46, 102, 115, 390. + +Footnote 1143: + + L. and P. XI, 1211, 1287; XII (1), 56, 191, 209, 315. + +Footnote 1144: + + Ibid. XII (1), 901 (2) (58); printed in full, Eng. Hist. Rev. V, + 565–6. + +Footnote 1145: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1252. + +Footnote 1146: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1147: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 1148: + + Ibid. 532, 535, 1296. + +Footnote 1149: + + Ibid. 979. + +Footnote 1150: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 499). + +Footnote 1151: + + Ibid. 1012 (4, v); 1087 (p. 499). + +Footnote 1152: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 499). + +Footnote 1153: + + Ibid. 1199 (3) (ii). + +Footnote 1154: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1155: + + Ibid. 777. + +Footnote 1156: + + L. and P. XII (1), 846; printed in full, Miscellaneous State Papers + (ed. the Earl of Hardwicke), I, 43. + +Footnote 1157: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1088. + +Footnote 1158: + + Ibid. 1020. + +Footnote 1159: + + Ibid. 1020, 1087 (p. 501). + +Footnote 1160: + + Ibid. 1199 (3, ii). + +Footnote 1161: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1162: + + Ibid. 632, cf. 783–4. + +Footnote 1163: + + Ibid. 1019. + +Footnote 1164: + + Ibid. 1020 (ii). + +Footnote 1165: + + Ibid. 1021 (3), 1087 (p. 499). + +Footnote 1166: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1199. + +Footnote 1167: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1168: + + Ibid. 1239. + +Footnote 1169: + + L. and P. XII (2), 12. + +Footnote 1170: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1171: + + Ibid. 192. + +Footnote 1172: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1021. + +Footnote 1173: + + Ibid. 479; printed in full, State Papers, I, 537. + +Footnote 1174: + + L. and P. XII (1), 609. + +Footnote 1175: + + Ibid. 698. + +Footnote 1176: + + Ibid. 1087 (p. 500). + +Footnote 1177: + + Ibid. 666. + +Footnote 1178: + + Ibid. 1035, 1269. + +Footnote 1179: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1012, 1023 (ii), 1087 (p. 500). + +Footnote 1180: + + Ibid. 1035. + +Footnote 1181: + + Ibid. 1012, 1023 (ii), 1035, 1036, 1087 (p. 500). + +Footnote 1182: + + Ibid. 1227 (13). + +Footnote 1183: + + Wriothesley, op. cit. I, 63. + +Footnote 1184: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1319. + +Footnote 1185: + + Wriothesley, op. cit. I, 64. + +Footnote 1186: + + L. and P. XII (2), 357; printed in part, Froude, op. cit. II, chap. + XIV. + +Footnote 1187: + + L. and P. XII (1), 730. + +Footnote 1188: + + L. and P. XII (2), 346; printed in full, State Papers V, 94. + +Footnote 1189: + + Lang, James VI and the Gowrie Mystery. + +Footnote 1190: + + Grey Friars’ Chron. (Camden Soc.), 41. + +Footnote 1191: + + Wriothesley, op. cit. I, 65. + +Footnote 1192: + + Hamilton Papers, Vol. I, p. 44; see below, chap. XXI. + +Footnote 1193: + + Spanish Chron. (ed. Hume), chap. XVII. + +Footnote 1194: + + L. and P. XII (2), 41; printed in full, Nott, Lives of Surrey and + Wyatt, p. 321, and Merriman, op. cit. II, no. 189. + +Footnote 1195: + + Thomas, The Pilgrim, p. 11 (ed. Froude). + +Footnote 1196: + + Holme: The Downfall of Rebellion. + +Footnote 1197: + + L. and P. XII (1), 632. + +Footnote 1198: + + Ibid. 784. + +Footnote 1199: + + Ibid. 849 (9). + +Footnote 1200: + + Ibid. 1178. + +Footnote 1201: + + Ibid. 1319. + +Footnote 1202: + + L. and P. XII (2), 14. + +Footnote 1203: + + Ibid. 179. + +Footnote 1204: + + Ibid. 576. + +Footnote 1205: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 501). + +Footnote 1206: + + Star Chamber Proc. Bdle. XIX, 393; Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks. + Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.) II, no. XLIX, misdated 1535. + +Footnote 1207: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1163; XII (2), Append. 16, 17. + +Footnote 1208: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 706. + +Footnote 1209: + + L. and P. XII (1), 498; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. XX. + +Footnote 1210: + + L. and P. XII (1), 609. + +Footnote 1211: + + Ibid. 687 (2); printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. XXII. + +Footnote 1212: + + L. and P. XII (2), 1339; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit. no. XXXI. + +Footnote 1213: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 996. + +Footnote 1214: + + Information supplied by Mr J. Crawford Hodgson. + +Footnote 1215: + + L. and P. XII (1), 698. + +Footnote 1216: + + L. and P. XII (2), 400. + +Footnote 1217: + + L. and P. XII (1), 671, 849 (27) (29) (30), 878, 959, 965. + +Footnote 1218: + + Ibid. 914. + +Footnote 1219: + + L. and P. XII (2), 192. + +Footnote 1220: + + L. and P. XII (2), 77; printed in full, State Papers, I, p. 551. + +Footnote 1221: + + L. and P. XII (2), 156. + +Footnote 1222: + + Ibid. 166. + +Footnote 1223: + + Ibid. Append. 31. + +Footnote 1224: + + Ibid. 178. + +Footnote 1225: + + L. and P. XII (2), 229; printed in full, State Papers, V, 91. + +Footnote 1226: + + Tong, op. cit. Append. p. i. + +Footnote 1227: + + L. and P. XII (2), Append. 31. + +Footnote 1228: + + L. and P. XV, 804. + +Footnote 1229: + + L. and P. XII (2), 203. + +Footnote 1230: + + L. and P. XII (1), 853. + +Footnote 1231: + + Ibid. 1082; printed in part by Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIV. + +Footnote 1232: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1223, 1224. + +Footnote 1233: + + Wriothesley, op. cit. I, 65. + +Footnote 1234: + + L. and P. XII (2), 229; printed in full, State Papers, V, 91. + +Footnote 1235: + + See above, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 1236: + + L. and P. XII (1), 946 (3). + +Footnote 1237: + + L. and P. XI, 1128. + +Footnote 1238: + + L. and P. XII (2), 292; printed in full, State Papers, I, 557. + +Footnote 1239: + + L. and P. XII (2), 291. + +Footnote 1240: + + L. and P. XV, 97. + +Footnote 1241: + + L. and P. XII (2), 292; printed in full, State Papers, I, 557. + +Footnote 1242: + + L. and P. XII (2), 203, 261. + +Footnote 1243: + + Ibid. 203. + +Footnote 1244: + + L. and P. XII (2), 292; printed in full, State Papers, I, 557. + +Footnote 1245: + + L. and P. XII (1), 291. + +Footnote 1246: + + L. and P. XII (1), 372–3; 372 printed in full, State Papers, V, 64. + +Footnote 1247: + + L. and P. XII (1), 222–5. + +Footnote 1248: + + Ibid. 293. + +Footnote 1249: + + L. and P. XI, 1410 (3). + +Footnote 1250: + + L. and P. XII (1), 98. + +Footnote 1251: + + Ibid. 86. + +Footnote 1252: + + Drake, Eboracum, Bk I, chap. VIII. + +Footnote 1253: + + L. and P. XII (1), 594; XII (2), 291, 369. + +Footnote 1254: + + L. and P. XII (1), 319. + +Footnote 1255: + + L. and P. XII (1), 291. + +Footnote 1256: + + Ibid. Append. 2. + +Footnote 1257: + + Ibid. 319. + +Footnote 1258: + + Ibid. 332; printed in full, Miscellaneous State Papers (ed. the Earl + of Hardwicke), I, 33. + +Footnote 1259: + + L. and P. XII (1), 225. + +Footnote 1260: + + L. and P. XII (1), 351. + +Footnote 1261: + + Ibid. 421; printed in full, Raine, Mem. of Hexham Priory (Surtees + Soc.), I, Append. p. cxlvii. + +Footnote 1262: + + See note A at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1263: + + L. and P. XII (1), 351. + +Footnote 1264: + + See above, chap. IX. + +Footnote 1265: + + L. and P. XII (1), 421; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. I, Append. + p. cxlvii. + +Footnote 1266: + + L. and P. XII (1), 422. + +Footnote 1267: + + See above, chap. XIX. + +Footnote 1268: + + L. and P. XII (1), 552. + +Footnote 1269: + + L. and P. XII (1), 553. + +Footnote 1270: + + Ibid. 594, 596, 859. + +Footnote 1271: + + Ibid. 594–5. + +Footnote 1272: + + See note B at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1273: + + L. and P. XII (1), 595. + +Footnote 1274: + + L. and P. XII (1), 594. + +Footnote 1275: + + Ibid. 636; printed in full, Miscellaneous State Papers (ed. the Earl + of Hardwicke), I, p. 39. + +Footnote 1276: + + L. and P. XII (1), 667; printed in full, Miscellaneous State Papers + (ed. the Earl of Hardwicke), I, p. 41. + +Footnote 1277: + + L. and P. XII (1), 651. + +Footnote 1278: + + Ibid. 594. + +Footnote 1279: + + Ibid. 596. + +Footnote 1280: + + Ibid. 594. + +Footnote 1281: + + See note C at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1282: + + Raine, op. cit. I, Append. p. clvii. + +Footnote 1283: + + L. and P. XII (1), 839. + +Footnote 1284: + + Ibid. 804. + +Footnote 1285: + + Ibid. 857. + +Footnote 1286: + + L. and P. XII (1), 857–8. + +Footnote 1287: + + Ibid. 858, 973. + +Footnote 1288: + + L. and P. XII (1), 919. + +Footnote 1289: + + L. and P. XI, 1305. + +Footnote 1290: + + L. and P. XII (1), 88. + +Footnote 1291: + + L. and P. XI, 1305. + +Footnote 1292: + + Ibid. 1315. + +Footnote 1293: + + Ibid. 1352, 1395. + +Footnote 1294: + + L. and P. XII (1), 12, 53. + +Footnote 1295: + + Ibid. 165. + +Footnote 1296: + + Ibid. 326. + +Footnote 1297: + + Ibid. 397. + +Footnote 1298: + + Ibid. 333; printed in full, Miscellaneous State Papers (ed. the Earl + of Hardwicke), I, p. 35. + +Footnote 1299: + + L. and P. XII (1), 398; printed in full, State Papers, V, p. 68. + +Footnote 1300: + + L. and P. XII (1), 399; printed in full, State Papers, I, 535. + +Footnote 1301: + + L. and P. XII (1), 463. + +Footnote 1302: + + Ibid. 166. + +Footnote 1303: + + Ibid. 463. + +Footnote 1304: + + Ibid. 600. + +Footnote 1305: + + L. and P. XII (1), 760–2; 760 printed in full, State Papers, V, 72. + +Footnote 1306: + + L. and P. XII (1), 990. + +Footnote 1307: + + L. and P. XII (2), 6. + +Footnote 1308: + + L. and P. XII (2), 80. + +Footnote 1309: + + Ibid. 74. + +Footnote 1310: + + Ibid. 80. + +Footnote 1311: + + L. and P. XII (1), 815–6; 816 printed in full, State Papers, I, 545. + +Footnote 1312: + + L. and P. XII (1), 843. + +Footnote 1313: + + Ibid. 882. + +Footnote 1314: + + L. and P. XII (2), Append. 12; printed in full, Hamilton Papers, I, + p. 41, no. 38. + +Footnote 1315: + + L. and P. XII (2), p. xviii n. + +Footnote 1316: + + L. and P. XII (1), 859. + +Footnote 1317: + + L. and P. XII (2), Append. 19; printed in full, Hamilton Papers, I, + p. 44, no. 41. + +Footnote 1318: + + L. and P. XII (2), Append. 18; printed in full, Hamilton Papers, I, + p. 43, no. 40. + +Footnote 1319: + + L. and P. XII (1), 967. + +Footnote 1320: + + Ibid. 952. + +Footnote 1321: + + Ibid. 968. + +Footnote 1322: + + Ibid. 993. + +Footnote 1323: + + Ibid. 967. + +Footnote 1324: + + L. and P. XII (1), 982, 991, 994, 1030, 1050, 1060. + +Footnote 1325: + + Ibid. 1026. + +Footnote 1326: + + Ibid. 1058. + +Footnote 1327: + + Ibid. 1038. + +Footnote 1328: + + Ibid. 1094; printed in full, State Papers, V, 75–7. + +Footnote 1329: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1043. + +Footnote 1330: + + Ibid. 1094; printed in full, State Papers, V, 75–7. + +Footnote 1331: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1118; printed in full, State Papers, I, 547. + +Footnote 1332: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1024. + +Footnote 1333: + + Ibid. 1091–2. + +Footnote 1334: + + See above, chap. XI. + +Footnote 1335: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1162. + +Footnote 1336: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1157. + +Footnote 1337: + + Ibid. 1162. + +Footnote 1338: + + Ibid. 1192. + +Footnote 1339: + + Ibid. 1157, 1162. + +Footnote 1340: + + See above, chap. XVIII. + +Footnote 1341: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1173. + +Footnote 1342: + + Ibid. 1172. + +Footnote 1343: + + L. and P. XII (2), 291. + +Footnote 1344: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1237; printed in full, State Papers, V, p. 78. + +Footnote 1345: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1286; printed in full, State Papers, V, 79. + +Footnote 1346: + + L. and P. XII (2), 422; printed in full, State Papers, V, 96. + +Footnote 1347: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1256. + +Footnote 1348: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1286, printed in full, State Papers, V, 79. + +Footnote 1349: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1287. + +Footnote 1350: + + Ibid. 1307. + +Footnote 1351: + + Ibid. 1317. + +Footnote 1352: + + L. and P. XII (2), 122, 236, 269, 270. + +Footnote 1353: + + Ibid. 291. + +Footnote 1354: + + L. and P. XII (2), 340. + +Footnote 1355: + + Ibid. 431. + +Footnote 1356: + + Ibid. 422; printed in full, State Papers, V, p. 96. + +Footnote 1357: + + L. and P. XII (2), 431. + +Footnote 1358: + + Ibid. 796 (1). + +Footnote 1359: + + Ibid. 479, 732. + +Footnote 1360: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1313; printed in full, State Papers, V, p. 81. + +Footnote 1361: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1238; printed in full, State Papers, I, 549. + +Footnote 1362: + + See above, chap. VIII. + +Footnote 1363: + + See above, chaps, III and XII. + +Footnote 1364: + + L. and P. XII (2), 369 (4). + +Footnote 1365: + + L. and P. XII (1), 425; XII (2), 369 (3). + +Footnote 1366: + + L. and P. XII (2), 369 (3). + +Footnote 1367: + + Ibid. 339. + +Footnote 1368: + + Ibid. 248. + +Footnote 1369: + + Ibid. 291. + +Footnote 1370: + + Ibid. 316, 369. + +Footnote 1371: + + Ibid. 369. + +Footnote 1372: + + Ibid. 339. + +Footnote 1373: + + Yorks. Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), II, no. + lxxi. + +Footnote 1374: + + T. Wright, Hist. of Halifax (ed. 1834), p. 21. + +Footnote 1375: + + L. and P. XII (2), 9. + +Footnote 1376: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1158; printed in full, Wilson, op. cit., no. + xxiii. + +Footnote 1377: + + L. and P. XII (2), 14. + +Footnote 1378: + + Ibid. 22. + +Footnote 1379: + + L. and P. XII (2), 77; printed in full, State Papers, I, p. 551. + +Footnote 1380: + + L. and P. XII (2), 100; printed in full, A Collection of Letters of + Princes (ed. Howard), p. 272. + +Footnote 1381: + + L. and P. XII (2), 102, 249, 250. + +Footnote 1382: + + L. and P. XII (2), 10, 69. + +Footnote 1383: + + See above, chap. IX. + +Footnote 1384: + + L. and P. XII (2), 332. + +Footnote 1385: + + Ibid. 142. + +Footnote 1386: + + Ibid. 142, 203. + +Footnote 1387: + + Ibid. 142. + +Footnote 1388: + + Ibid. 229; printed in full, State Papers, V, p. 91. + +Footnote 1389: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 1010. + +Footnote 1390: + + State Papers, V, 203; L. and P. XVII, 219. + +Footnote 1391: + + L. and P. XII (2), 280; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. I, App. p. + clix. + +Footnote 1392: + + L. and P. XII (2), 291. + +Footnote 1393: + + Ibid. 588; printed in full, State Papers, V, 101. + +Footnote 1394: + + L. and P. XII (2), 741. + +Footnote 1395: + + L. and P. XII (2), 772. + +Footnote 1396: + + Ibid. 823, 878, 978, 979, 1076, 1242. + +Footnote 1397: + + L. and P. XIV (2), 431. + +Footnote 1398: + + Ibid. 781, f. 85 b. + +Footnote 1399: + + L. and P. XV, 570, 618, 987; Nicolas, Proc. and Ord. of the Privy + Council (Rec. Com.), VII, pp. 6, 7. + +Footnote 1400: + + L. and P. XII (2), 229; printed in full, State Papers, V, p. 91. + +Footnote 1401: + + L. and P. XII (2), 154–5, 254. + +Footnote 1402: + + Ibid. 203. + +Footnote 1403: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 1404: + + Ibid. 248. + +Footnote 1405: + + L. and P. XII (2), 229; printed in full, State Papers, V, p. 91. + +Footnote 1406: + + L. and P. XII (2), 152. + +Footnote 1407: + + Ibid. 238. + +Footnote 1408: + + Ibid. 239. + +Footnote 1409: + + L. and P. XII (2), 291. + +Footnote 1410: + + Ibid. 291 (ii). + +Footnote 1411: + + Ibid. 203. + +Footnote 1412: + + Ibid. 332. + +Footnote 1413: + + L. and P. XII (2), 346; printed in full, State Papers, V, 94, and + Scott’s History of Berwick, p. 127. + +Footnote 1414: + + L. and P. XII (2), 332, 370. + +Footnote 1415: + + Ibid. 422, 430; 422 printed in full, State Papers, V, 96. + +Footnote 1416: + + L. and P. XII (2), 479; printed in full, State Papers, V, 99. + +Footnote 1417: + + L. and P. XII (2), 590. + +Footnote 1418: + + Ibid. 566, 590. + +Footnote 1419: + + Ibid. 588; printed in full, State Papers, V, 101. + +Footnote 1420: + + L. and P. XII (2), 651. + +Footnote 1421: + + L. and P. XII (2), 589. + +Footnote 1422: + + See above, chap. IX. + +Footnote 1423: + + L. and P. XII (2), 547. + +Footnote 1424: + + Ibid. 588; printed in full, State Papers, V, 101. + +Footnote 1425: + + L. and P. XII (2), 422; printed in full, State Papers, V, 96; L. and + P. XII (2), 537; 604, 642, 732; 828–9, printed in full, State + Papers, V, 109–11; L. and P. XII (2), 836, 865, 990. + +Footnote 1426: + + L. and P. XII (2), 588; printed in full, State Papers, V, 102; L. + and P. XII (2), 590, 666; printed in full, State Papers, V, 106. + +Footnote 1427: + + L. and P. XII (2), 650; printed in full, State Papers, V, 104. + +Footnote 1428: + + L. and P. XII (2), 695, 732. + +Footnote 1429: + + Ibid. 696; printed in full, State Papers, V, 107. + +Footnote 1430: + + L. and P. XII (2), 712; printed in full, State Papers, I, 565. + +Footnote 1431: + + L. and P. XII (2), 732, 741. + +Footnote 1432: + + Ibid. 772. + +Footnote 1433: + + Ibid. 741. + +Footnote 1434: + + Ibid. 746. + +Footnote 1435: + + Ibid. 823. + +Footnote 1436: + + Ibid. 828; printed in full, State Papers, V, 109. + +Footnote 1437: + + L. and P. XII (2), 839. + +Footnote 1438: + + Dicey, The Privy Council, pt. III, sect. III, 2, c. + +Footnote 1439: + + See above, chap. III. + +Footnote 1440: + + Prothero, Statutes and Constitutional Documents, 1559–1625, + Introduction, V. + +Footnote 1441: + + Lapsley, op. cit. chap. VI, sect. 35. + +Footnote 1442: + + West Riding Sessions Rolls and Proc. in the Council of the North + (Yorks. Arch. Ass. Rec. Ser.), III, pp. i-vi, 1–22. + +Footnote 1443: + + Prothero, op. cit., Intro. V, and Documents, Reign of James I, IV, + no. 3. + +Footnote 1444: + + Lapsley, loc. cit. + +Footnote 1445: + + Prothero, op. cit., Intro. V. + +Footnote 1446: + + L. and P. XII (2), 915; printed in full, State Papers, V, 116. + +Footnote 1447: + + L. and P. XII (2), 913, 914; 913 printed in full, State Papers, V, + 112. + +Footnote 1448: + + L. and P. XII (2), 102 (3); see above, chaps. XII and XVII, and + Baildon, Monastic Notes (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), I, p. 215. + +Footnote 1449: + + Drake, Eboracum, bk I, chap. VIII. + +Footnote 1450: + + L. and P. XII (2), 915; printed in full, State Papers, V, 116. See + Brown, Yorkshire Star Chamber Proc. (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.), + I, p. vii n. and no. xxxix. + +Footnote 1451: + + L. and P. XII (2), 915. + +Footnote 1452: + + L. and P. XII (1), 517. + +Footnote 1453: + + L. and P. XII (2), 955. + +Footnote 1454: + + Ibid. 548. + +Footnote 1455: + + Ibid. 229; printed in part, De Fonblanque, op. cit. II, chap. X, and + State Papers, V, 91. + +Footnote 1456: + + L. and P. XII (2), 915; printed in full, State Papers, V, 116; De + Fonblanque, loc. cit. + +Footnote 1457: + + L. and P. XII (2), 1016; printed in full, Merriman, op. cit. II, no. + 227. + +Footnote 1458: + + L. and P. XII (2), 280; printed in full, Raine, op. cit. I, Append. + p. clix. + +Footnote 1459: + + L. and P. XII (2), 915, 1077; printed in full, State Papers, V, 116, + 122. + +Footnote 1460: + + L. and P. XII (2), 1077; printed in full, State Papers, V, 123. + +Footnote 1461: + + L. and P. XII (2), 829, 836, 865. + +Footnote 1462: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 753. + +Footnote 1463: + + See above, chap. II. + +Footnote 1464: + + Haile, op. cit. chap. IX. + +Footnote 1465: + + See above, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 1466: + + L. and P. XII (1), 105. + +Footnote 1467: + + Ibid. 88. + +Footnote 1468: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 507. + +Footnote 1469: + + L. and P. XII (1), 249. + +Footnote 1470: + + Ibid. 125, 429. + +Footnote 1471: + + Ibid. 429. + +Footnote 1472: + + Ibid. 367. + +Footnote 1473: + + L. and P. XII (1), 429. + +Footnote 1474: + + Ibid. 430. + +Footnote 1475: + + Ibid. 429. + +Footnote 1476: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 507. + +Footnote 1477: + + L. and P. XII (1), 368. + +Footnote 1478: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 1479: + + Ibid. 444. + +Footnote 1480: + + L. and P. XII (1), 949. + +Footnote 1481: + + Ibid. 817. + +Footnote 1482: + + Ibid. 865. + +Footnote 1483: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 1484: + + Ibid. 931. + +Footnote 1485: + + Ibid. 939. + +Footnote 1486: + + L. and P. XII (1), 940. + +Footnote 1487: + + Ibid. 1032. + +Footnote 1488: + + Ibid. 1052. + +Footnote 1489: + + Ibid. 1061. + +Footnote 1490: + + Ibid. 1053, 1242, 1243. + +Footnote 1491: + + Ibid. 996. + +Footnote 1492: + + Ibid. 1220. + +Footnote 1493: + + Ibid. 1135. + +Footnote 1494: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1220. + +Footnote 1495: + + Ibid. 1293. + +Footnote 1496: + + Ibid. 1242. + +Footnote 1497: + + L. and P. XII (2), 26. + +Footnote 1498: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1293. + +Footnote 1499: + + L. and P. XII (2), 128. + +Footnote 1500: + + Ibid. 107. + +Footnote 1501: + + Ibid. 71–3. + +Footnote 1502: + + Ibid. 108. + +Footnote 1503: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 797. + +Footnote 1504: + + See above, chap. XIII. + +Footnote 1505: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 797. + +Footnote 1506: + + See note A at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1507: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 797. + +Footnote 1508: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 804 (p. 315). + +Footnote 1509: + + Ibid. 797. + +Footnote 1510: + + L. and P. XII (2), 174. + +Footnote 1511: + + Ibid. 559. + +Footnote 1512: + + L. and P. XII (1), 1242, 1243; L. and P. XII (2), 71–3, 169, 310, + 499, 559. + +Footnote 1513: + + See above, chap. XX. + +Footnote 1514: + + L. and P. XII (2), 310. + +Footnote 1515: + + Ibid. 598. + +Footnote 1516: + + L. and P. XII (2), 552. + +Footnote 1517: + + Ibid. 619; printed in full, Merriman, op. cit. II, 82. + +Footnote 1518: + + L. and P. XII (2), 620; printed in full, Merriman, op. cit. II, 84. + +Footnote 1519: + + See note B at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1520: + + L. and P. XII (2), 795. + +Footnote 1521: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 822. + +Footnote 1522: + + Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XV; see note C at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1523: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 765. + +Footnote 1524: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 1525: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 318). + +Footnote 1526: + + Ibid. (p. 319). + +Footnote 1527: + + Ibid. 771 (iii). + +Footnote 1528: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 358, 371. + +Footnote 1529: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 804 (p. 319). + +Footnote 1530: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 961 (2). + +Footnote 1531: + + Ibid. 772. + +Footnote 1532: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 317). + +Footnote 1533: + + L. and P. XII (2), 51. + +Footnote 1534: + + See above, chap. XVII. + +Footnote 1535: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 820. + +Footnote 1536: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 319). + +Footnote 1537: + + Ibid. 702 (p. 269). + +Footnote 1538: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 317). + +Footnote 1539: + + Ibid. 702, 876, 960; see note D at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1540: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 702. + +Footnote 1541: + + Ibid. 960. + +Footnote 1542: + + Ibid. 800. + +Footnote 1543: + + Ibid. 702, 875. + +Footnote 1544: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 318). + +Footnote 1545: + + Ibid. 960 (12). + +Footnote 1546: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 316). + +Footnote 1547: + + Ibid. (pp. 316–7). + +Footnote 1548: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 804 (p. 315). + +Footnote 1549: + + Ibid. 797. + +Footnote 1550: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 316). + +Footnote 1551: + + Ibid. 766. + +Footnote 1552: + + Ibid. 702, 828 (2). + +Footnote 1553: + + Ibid. 828. + +Footnote 1554: + + L. and P. XII (2), 921. + +Footnote 1555: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 804 (p. 317). + +Footnote 1556: + + Ibid. 800. + +Footnote 1557: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 804 (p. 317). + +Footnote 1558: + + Ibid. (p. 316). + +Footnote 1559: + + Ibid. 800. + +Footnote 1560: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 315). + +Footnote 1561: + + Ibid. 797. + +Footnote 1562: + + Ibid. 829 (iii). + +Footnote 1563: + + Ibid. 829 (i). + +Footnote 1564: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 319). + +Footnote 1565: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 829 (i). + +Footnote 1566: + + Ibid. 818. + +Footnote 1567: + + Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XIV. + +Footnote 1568: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 41. + +Footnote 1569: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 1200. + +Footnote 1570: + + L. and P. XII (2), 1185, 1205, 1208, 1256, 1282, 1298. + +Footnote 1571: + + Gairdner, Introductions to Vols. XII and XIII of Letters and Papers; + Froude, Reign of Henry VIII, chaps. XIV, XV and XVI. + +Footnote 1572: + + Froude, op. cit., chaps. XIV and XV. + +Footnote 1573: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 1311. + +Footnote 1574: + + Ibid. 1312–13; see note A at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1575: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 20. + +Footnote 1576: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 142. + +Footnote 1577: + + See chap. IV. + +Footnote 1578: + + L. and P. XIII (1), 533, 705. + +Footnote 1579: + + Ibid. 487. + +Footnote 1580: + + See Froude, chaps. XIV and XV. + +Footnote 1581: + + Haile, op. cit. chap. XII. + +Footnote 1582: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 117, 337, 507–9, 813, 1034. + +Footnote 1583: + + Ibid. 507. + +Footnote 1584: + + Ibid. 695 (2). + +Footnote 1585: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 804 (p. 316). + +Footnote 1586: + + See chap. IV. + +Footnote 1587: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 817. + +Footnote 1588: + + Ibid. 875 (1). + +Footnote 1589: + + Ibid. 817. + +Footnote 1590: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 316). + +Footnote 1591: + + Ibid. 392. + +Footnote 1592: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 316). + +Footnote 1593: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 772. + +Footnote 1594: + + Ibid. 829 (2). + +Footnote 1595: + + Ibid. 796. + +Footnote 1596: + + Ibid. 829 (2). + +Footnote 1597: + + Ibid. 803. + +Footnote 1598: + + Ibid. 797. + +Footnote 1599: + + Ibid. 695. + +Footnote 1600: + + Ibid. 829 (2). + +Footnote 1601: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 316). + +Footnote 1602: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 829 (p. 339). + +Footnote 1603: + + Ibid. 702 (2). + +Footnote 1604: + + Ibid. 779. + +Footnote 1605: + + Ibid. 796. + +Footnote 1606: + + Ibid. 232 (p. 91). + +Footnote 1607: + + Ibid. 804 (p. 317). + +Footnote 1608: + + Ibid. 796. + +Footnote 1609: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 695 (2). + +Footnote 1610: + + Ibid. 772. + +Footnote 1611: + + Ibid. 703. + +Footnote 1612: + + Moryson, An Invective against Treason. + +Footnote 1613: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 695 (2), 804. + +Footnote 1614: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 392. + +Footnote 1615: + + Ibid. 592. + +Footnote 1616: + + Ibid. 392. + +Footnote 1617: + + Ibid. 393. + +Footnote 1618: + + L. and P. XVI, 19. + +Footnote 1619: + + Spanish Chronicle, chap. LX. + +Footnote 1620: + + Moryson, op. cit. + +Footnote 1621: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 743. + +Footnote 1622: + + Ibid. 695 (2). + +Footnote 1623: + + Ibid. 804. + +Footnote 1624: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 828 (2). + +Footnote 1625: + + Ibid. 702. + +Footnote 1626: + + Ibid. 800. + +Footnote 1627: + + Ibid. 753. + +Footnote 1628: + + Ibid. 822, 827, 828–9. + +Footnote 1629: + + Ibid. 884. + +Footnote 1630: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 771 (iii). + +Footnote 1631: + + See chap. II. + +Footnote 1632: + + Froude, op. cit. II, chap. XV. + +Footnote 1633: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 233, 280. + +Footnote 1634: + + Stubbs, op. cit. III, section 463. + +Footnote 1635: + + Gee and Hardy, op. cit. no. lvii. + +Footnote 1636: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 772, 804 (p. 319). + +Footnote 1637: + + Ibid. 827 (3). + +Footnote 1638: + + Ibid. 829 (iii). + +Footnote 1639: + + Ibid. + +Footnote 1640: + + Ibid. 830 (p. 341). + +Footnote 1641: + + Ibid. 829 (p. 339). + +Footnote 1642: + + L. and P. V, 340, 416. + +Footnote 1643: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 961 (1); see above chap. XIX, note D. + +Footnote 1644: + + L. and P. XII (2), 802. + +Footnote 1645: + + Trans. of the Royal Historical Society, New Series, Vol. XVIII + (1904); D. A. Cheney, Holy Maid of Kent, pp. 117–8 (n.). + +Footnote 1646: + + See above, chap. II. + +Footnote 1647: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 702. + +Footnote 1648: + + Ibid. 979 (15). + +Footnote 1649: + + Ibid. 979. + +Footnote 1650: + + Ibid. 982. + +Footnote 1651: + + Ibid. 1062. + +Footnote 1652: + + Ibid. 968. + +Footnote 1653: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 979 (3). + +Footnote 1654: + + Ibid. 979 (7). + +Footnote 1655: + + Ibid. 979 (19). + +Footnote 1656: + + Moryson, An Invective against Treason. + +Footnote 1657: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 986, 987. + +Footnote 1658: + + Wriothesley, op. cit. I, p. 92; L. and P. XIII (2), 1056. + +Footnote 1659: + + Ibid. 1163. + +Footnote 1660: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 37 (p. 19). + +Footnote 1661: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 875 (1). + +Footnote 1662: + + Ibid. 855 (2); copied from original at the R. O. + +Footnote 1663: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 818. + +Footnote 1664: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 835. + +Footnote 1665: + + Ibid. 835, 838 (iii). + +Footnote 1666: + + Ibid. 817 (p. 326). + +Footnote 1667: + + Ibid. 797 (ii). + +Footnote 1668: + + Ibid. 855. + +Footnote 1669: + + Ibid. 818 (21). + +Footnote 1670: + + Ibid. 818 (19). + +Footnote 1671: + + Ibid. 875. + +Footnote 1672: + + Ibid. 818 (5). + +Footnote 1673: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 855. + +Footnote 1674: + + Ibid. 979 (5). + +Footnote 1675: + + Ibid. 1036; see note B at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1676: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 820 (iii). + +Footnote 1677: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 466. + +Footnote 1678: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 1162. + +Footnote 1679: + + Ibid. 1163. + +Footnote 1680: + + Ibid. 1112. + +Footnote 1681: + + Ibid. 821, 822, 829. + +Footnote 1682: + + Ibid. 1117. + +Footnote 1683: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 37 (p. 18). + +Footnote 1684: + + Ibid. Introduction, pp. i-iv. + +Footnote 1685: + + Ibid. 37. + +Footnote 1686: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 280. + +Footnote 1687: + + Ibid. 37. + +Footnote 1688: + + L. and P. V, 238, 340. + +Footnote 1689: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 37. + +Footnote 1690: + + Ibid. 290. + +Footnote 1691: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 830; see note C at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1692: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 290. + +Footnote 1693: + + Wriothesley, op. cit. I (p. 93). + +Footnote 1694: + + Hall’s Chronicle, Ann. 1539. + +Footnote 1695: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 37. + +Footnote 1696: + + Ibid. 498. + +Footnote 1697: + + Ibid. 37. + +Footnote 1698: + + Moryson, “An Invective against treason.” + +Footnote 1699: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 280. + +Footnote 1700: + + Moryson, op. cit. + +Footnote 1701: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 191 (3). + +Footnote 1702: + + L. and P. XIV (2), 212. + +Footnote 1703: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 217. + +Footnote 1704: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 520. + +Footnote 1705: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 867 (15). + +Footnote 1706: + + Parl. Roll 1539, R. O.; see note D at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1707: + + L. and P. XIV (1), 980. + +Footnote 1708: + + Froude, op. cit. chap. XVI. + +Footnote 1709: + + L. and P. XIV (2), 287, 554. + +Footnote 1710: + + See above. + +Footnote 1711: + + Everett Wood, op. cit. III, no. xlii. + +Footnote 1712: + + L. and P. XV, 487. + +Footnote 1713: + + Everett Wood, op. cit. III, no. xlii. + +Footnote 1714: + + Hall’s Chronicle. + +Footnote 1715: + + Everett Wood, op. cit. III, no. xlii. + +Footnote 1716: + + L. and P. XVI, 941; printed in part, Correspondance de Castillon + (ed. Kaulek), no. 350. + +Footnote 1717: + + L. and P. XVI, 868. + +Footnote 1718: + + Ibid. 897. + +Footnote 1719: + + L. and P. XV, 487. + +Footnote 1720: + + Haile, op. cit. chap. XIV. + +Footnote 1721: + + See note D at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1722: + + L. and P. XVI, 897. + +Footnote 1723: + + Ibid. 1011; printed in part, Correspondance de Castillon (ed. + Kaulek), no. 351. + +Footnote 1724: + + L. and P. XVII, 880, f. 23 b, f. 29, f. 43 b. + +Footnote 1725: + + L. and P. XVI, 19. + +Footnote 1726: + + Spanish Chron. (ed. Hume), preface. + +Footnote 1727: + + See note E at end of chapter. + +Footnote 1728: + + Spanish Chron. (ed. Hume), chap. LX. + +Footnote 1729: + + Haile, op. cit. chap. XIV. + +Footnote 1730: + + English Hist. Rev. XXVIII, 528. + +Footnote 1731: + + L. and P. XIII (2), 1036. + +Footnote 1732: + + L. and P. XV, 498 II. + +Footnote 1733: + + Spanish Cal. 1547–9, p. 188. + +Footnote 1734: + + Hume, op. cit. preface. + +Footnote 1735: + + D.N.B. + +Footnote 1736: + + Pollard, op. cit. chap. XVI. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + + + TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES + + + ● Fixed typos; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. + ● Renumbered footnotes and moved them all to the end of the final + chapter. + ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. + ● Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=. + ● Images without captions use HTML alt text. + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78639 *** |