THE COUNCIL AT YORK
On Tuesday 14 November 1536 the King decided that the Pilgrims’
ambassadors must be sent back with some sort of answer, as the reports
from the north showed that delay was not producing so good an effect as
he had hoped[1414].
On Thursday 16 November Sir Brian Hastings sent to Lord Darcy a
complaint that the commons were killing the King’s deer[1415]. Darcy
wrote back next day in very good spirits, for he had heard that Sir
Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes were returning and would be at Doncaster
next day[1416]. Now that they were on their way home down the road over
which they had travelled with such anxious hearts three weeks before,
the two northern gentlemen made all the haste they could, and seem to
have reached Templehurst late on Friday 17 November[1417]. A post was
despatched on their arrival to summon Aske from Wressell, but rumour had
preceded it. Aske was told that Bowes and Ellerker had returned with
orders to arrest him, and he wrote to Darcy to inquire into the meaning
of this warning. Darcy replied with a most emphatic assurance that
“neither Sir Ralph Ellerker nor Robert Bowes, my cousins, nor myself
would for none earthly goods send to have you come hither but after a
just and true sort.” Darcy begged Aske to come at once, as his presence
was urgently required. A post must be sent to London that day, and
measures must be taken for the meeting at York and other matters. Darcy
advised him to bring William Babthorpe with him[1418].
The letter and credence of Bowes and Ellerker were laid before the small
council of the chief captains of the Pilgrimage at Templehurst on
Saturday 18 November[1419]. Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, Aske and
Babthorpe were present, and there may have been others. The report of
the messengers was not very satisfactory. The King’s reply to the
articles, written in his own hand, was not forthcoming. There was only a
verbal message, and when it was divested of Henry’s complaints about the
unnatural conduct of his subjects, reproaches for breaches of the truce,
and professions of clemency, all that remained was the statement that he
found their articles “general, dark, and obscure,” but that he would
send the Duke of Norfolk to Doncaster to make a full reply to them. The
rebels were to appoint three hundred representatives to meet the Duke,
and if they insisted they might have a safeconduct[1420]. Norfolk’s
letter was a little more explicit, as he suggested that the meeting
should take place on 29 November; he added that as a special compliment
to Darcy his kinsman Fitzwilliam had been appointed to attend the
meeting. As the letter was intended to be read openly, Norfolk made no
allusion to the capture of Aske, and merely replied to Darcy’s
remonstrance, “I have lived too long to think otherwise than truly and
honestly,” which was rather a doubtful argument[1421].
Darcy was very anxious that the King’s offer should be accepted at once.
He was better acquainted with Henry than the other gentlemen, and knew
that what appeared at first sight vague and unsatisfactory was really an
extraordinary condescension. He wanted to despatch a message of
acceptance immediately[1422], but the other captains were not so well
pleased and insisted on referring the letter and message, with the whole
question of peace or war, to the great council which had already been
summoned to meet at York[1423]. As it was to be held on Tuesday 21
November, this meant only three days delay in the answer, which did not
seem an unreasonable length of time after the King had kept them waiting
for three weeks. The gentlemen had begun to assemble at York as early as
15 November[1424], and all would be ready on the appointed day.
As the negotiations might come to nothing, the captains at Templehurst
debated as to what they should do if the treaty fell through and war was
declared. They made arrangements for garrisoning Hull, Pontefract, and
other places, and discussed the difficulties of obtaining provisions and
ammunition[1425]. It was decided that on the outbreak of hostilities
they must divide their forces into three armies to cross the Trent at
three different points, and a rendezvous was appointed on the south of
the river[1426]. They considered the question of opening communications
with the Emperor, who, they believed, would help them. Dr Marmaduke
Walby, vicar of Kirk Deighton and prebendary of Carlisle, had come to
Templehurst with Sir Robert Constable[1427]. It was resolved that he
should sail for the Netherlands to ask the Regent to send money, 2000
arquebuses and 2000 horsemen, and to open communications with the Pope
on behalf of the Pilgrims. Darcy said that he would inform the Imperial
ambassador in London that Walby was going on this mission[1428]. Walby
was selected because he knew noblemen at the Regent’s court who had
formerly been ambassadors in England. He was given £20 for his expenses
and went to Hull, but before he embarked Darcy sent word that he was to
delay his journey; on hearing this he returned home and never took the
message[1429].
The captains who had met at Templehurst seem to have remained there
until it was time to go to York. Aske was at Templehurst on Sunday 19
November[1430]. That night a warning was sent to Pontefract that Sir
Henry Saville had ordered all his men to muster at Rotherham on the
following day. Saville knew that “all the great men” were now “forth of
their business,” and it was feared that he was secretly cooperating with
the royal troops to capture Wakefield or Pontefract, possibly even
Templehurst and the captains there[1431]. This news was sent on from
Pontefract to Wakefield, where the energetic Thomas Grice seized Sir
Henry Saville’s men before they could set out, and compelled Brian
Bradford and others to take the Pilgrims’ oath before witnesses[1432].
Shrewsbury was told on 19 November that Thomas Grice was harassing Sir
Henry’s loyal tenants so that they were forced to fly to Rotherham and
elsewhere[1433]. On this report Shrewsbury wrote to Darcy to complain of
his steward’s conduct, and Darcy, after receiving Grice’s explanation,
wrote back to ask Shrewsbury to keep Sir Henry Saville in order[1434].
It is possible that this was an actual attempt to capture the leaders of
the Pilgrimage when they were all together at Templehurst. Several
points suggest this explanation, as for instance the rumour which Aske
heard before he came to Templehurst[1435], the fact that no excuse for
Sir Henry Saville’s conduct was offered, although the previous alarm
caused by Sir Brian Hastings had been explained, Sir Henry Saville’s
prompt flight to Shrewsbury at Wingfield[1436], and Suffolk’s letter to
the King on Monday 20 November, the day after the supposed attempt had
been baffled by Grice’s vigilance. In this letter Suffolk wrote that the
apprehension of Aske and Constable was a very doubtful matter, which he
would not attempt unless he was sure that it could not come to their
knowledge until it was accomplished, as if suspected it would only cause
more mischief[1437]. This suggests that Suffolk had recently tried to
carry out the King’s request, but, having failed, wished to hide his
failure and to excuse himself from any further endeavour.
Norfolk and Fitzwilliam had already set out from London, and had
advanced as far as “the house of Sir Robert a Lee,” at Quarrendon in
Buckinghamshire[1438], when they were met by a messenger from Bowes and
Ellerker sent to tell them that the Pilgrims had not yet decided to
treat with them[1439]. Norfolk wrote to Darcy on Monday 20 November,
complaining bitterly of the alarm on Martinmas day, which he attributed
to false persons who desired to prevent a peaceful settlement of the
trouble. He begged Darcy to use all his influence on behalf of peace,
and assured him that on the King’s side nothing was “thought or meant to
impeach the same our good purpose.”[1440] The Pilgrims’ suspicion had
naturally been awakened by the network of royal plots which they
discovered or half-discovered. They were no longer so sure as they had
been in the beginning that the King was the fountain of honour, and that
Norfolk was as straightforward as they were themselves. It was
unfortunate that they were cheated again by Norfolk’s fair words.
In spite of the delay in the Pilgrims’ answer, Norfolk and Fitzwilliam
decided to continue their journey in order to review the royal troops,
inspect the fortifications at Nottingham and Derby, and consult with
Suffolk at Newark[1441].
On Tuesday 21 November the great council of the Pilgrims assembled at
York. The building where they held their meetings is never named. Darcy
was not present; the captains agreed to excuse him on account of the
difficulty which he had in travelling, and he remained at home until the
second great meeting which they had already determined to hold at
Pontefract[1442]. The captains who are named as being present at York
were Robert Aske, Sir Robert Constable, Sir Stephen Hamerton[1443],
Nicholas Tempest, Lord Latimer, Sir James Strangways, Robert Chaloner,
Sir Ralph Ellerker, Robert Bowes, William Babthorpe, William Stapleton,
Lord Scrope, Sir Nicholas Fairfax, and Sir Richard Tempest[1444]. There
were in addition about 800 of the lesser gentlemen and commons, as a
certain number had been chosen out of every wapentake or parish to
attend the meeting[1445]. The Abbot of Holm Cultram gave 40s. to the
representatives from Penrith[1446]. Among these less important persons
were Marmaduke Neville, a younger brother of the Earl of
Westmorland[1447], one Walker, John Fowbery, William Aclom, and Robert
Pullen[1448]. There were also some royal spies, for instance Hugh
Hilton, a servant of the Earl of Huntingdon[1449]. The most interesting
of these spies was Christopher Aske. He had arrived at Wressell Castle
on Friday 17 November, under safeconduct, to lay before Robert Aske the
injuries that the Earl of Cumberland had received from the commons. On
his arrival the two brothers fell into an argument as to whether Robert
could have taken Skipton Castle or not. Robert said that though it was
strong the defenders wanted artillery and powder, and he could have
taken it easily. Christopher replied that it was impregnable, and should
never be taken while the Earl and he himself were alive. In describing
this conversation to Norfolk months afterwards, Robert acknowledged that
he had been misled by an intercepted letter from Cumberland which really
related to the weakness of Carlisle, and consequently perhaps he could
not have taken Skipton. While the brothers were discussing this
interesting point, Darcy’s letter announcing the arrival of Bowes and
Ellerker was brought to Robert, who hastily prepared to ride to
Templehurst with about sixty of his men. His followers grumbled at the
sudden summons because they had not yet had their dinner, and said “a
man was worthy his meat, or else his service was ill.” Christopher took
the opportunity to assure his brother that the commons would turn
against him and either kill him themselves or give him up to his enemies
“like Jacques Dartnell, William Wallas and others.” Much the wisest and
safest course for Robert would be to go and make his peace with the
King. Robert, however, was no fine gentleman; he thoroughly understood
his rough followers, and paid not the smallest attention to
Christopher’s prognostications. His Yorkshiremen never betrayed
him,—that was reserved for the King. While Robert was away Christopher
contrived to go through his brother’s private papers, and found the
scheme for invading the south which had been drawn up in case the
negotiations at Doncaster should fail. Christopher afterwards went to
York and there “demeaned himself so covertly that he returned to
Cumberland knowing all their purposes.”[1450]
The first business of the great council at York was to appoint two
hundred representatives to deal with the questions before them[1451].
Robert Bowes gave an account of his mission to this body, telling them
everything that had been said and done before the King and his Council,
mentioning the proposed conference at Doncaster, and reciting “the
goodness of my lord Privy Seal to the commons promised by his word—and
therewith he stayed.” Henry and Cromwell had made good use of the time
that the ambassadors spent at court by winning them entirely to the
King’s side. Bowes and Ellerker were not influenced in any dishonourable
way, but they came back quite convinced of the King’s good faith and
mercy, and satisfied that the Pilgrims might safely disband, since their
purposes were accomplished. As far as they were personally concerned
they were right to believe in Henry’s goodwill, for they were both
trusted and employed by him after the rebellion.
When Bowes had finished his speech Sir Robert Constable requested him to
withdraw while the council debated on it. Constable then laid before
them a very different matter[1452].
Young Sir Ralph Evers had been besieged in Scarborough Castle as early
as 17 October[1453]. Supplies had been sent to him about 27 October,
rather against the King’s will, as he was afraid the rebels would
capture them[1454]. They arrived safely, and after the truce, when the
siege was raised, Evers wrote to ask Suffolk for more[1455]. His request
was sent up to London on 5 November, and on 10 November Cromwell himself
wrote to Evers[1456] and sent the letter to Thomas Hatcliff at Lincoln.
Hatcliff despatched a trusty messenger with £100 and the letter to
Grimsby, where they were entrusted to Edward Waters to be conveyed to
Scarborough[1457]. On Wednesday 15 November he embarked in a “crayer,”
and for some days no further news was heard of him by his
comrades[1458]. He was, however, almost immediately captured by the
commons of Beverley and the Wold under the leadership of John Hallam,
and the siege of Scarborough Castle was at once renewed. Hallam “wrung
Waters by the beard” and threatened to cut his head off. By this
violence he extracted from him the confession that Cromwell had sent
him[1459]. To save himself Waters produced Cromwell’s letter. The
commons divided all the loose cash on the ship among them, receiving 3s.
each, but they sent to Aske the £100, Edward Waters, and Cromwell’s
letter. Waters remained with Aske, but his troubles were now over and he
was not treated like a prisoner. He had a servant, a chamber and a
feather bed of his own, and spent his time in hunting and
shooting[1460].
It was the letter which had been captured on this occasion that Sir
Robert Constable now read to the council of the Pilgrims at York, in
order that they might compare it with “the goodness of my lord Privy
Seal to the commons, promised by his word.” On 10 November Cromwell had
written that if the Pilgrims continued longer in rebellion they should
be so subdued that “their example shall be fearful to all subjects
whiles the world doth endure.”[1461] The reading of this letter
naturally made a great impression on the assembly. The flat
contradiction between the two messages confirmed the suspicion that the
King’s conduct had awakened. The Pilgrims doubted whether it would be
safe to treat with the King while he was under the influence of a man so
unscrupulous as Cromwell. Sir Robert Constable gave his advice most
decidedly, “as he had broken one point in the tables with the King he
would break another, and have no meeting, but have all the country made
sure from Trent northwards, and then he had no doubt all Lancashire,
Cheshire, Derbyshire and the parts thereabout would join with them.
Then, he said, he would condescend to a meeting.”[1462] But there were
strong influences on the other side. Darcy was known to be in favour of
the conference[1463]. Babthorpe spoke on the side of peace[1464]. Aske
adhered steadily to his policy of trying every means to obtain peaceful
redress of their grievances before they resorted to force. The King had
replied to the articles, although the Pilgrims had not yet received his
answer. It would be the height of inconsistency to present a petition
and then refuse to receive the reply. They would commit themselves to
nothing by agreeing to confer with the Duke of Norfolk, and much good
might result from the conference. The treachery which they all resented
so bitterly must be due to the evil influence of Cromwell, but
Cromwell’s power, as they hoped, was waning. They were going to treat,
not with Cromwell, but with Norfolk, and Norfolk was faithful and
honourable. He would perform his promises, and once he was restored to
his place at court he would bring the King back to a better frame of
mind. Such seem to have been the arguments employed by the advocates of
the conference, but no further record of the debate remains. In the end
the peace party prevailed, and it was decided that three hundred
representatives should be sent to Doncaster to meet Norfolk and to hear
the King’s reply on St Nicholas’ Eve, Tuesday 5 December[1465]. This
date was fixed upon in order to give time for sending messages into
distant parts of the country[1466].
The next point to be discussed was the King’s complaint that the
articles which had been sent to him were vague and obscure. To remove
this difficulty it was resolved that another general council should be
held at Pontefract two days before the conference at Doncaster. Every
shire or wapentake would be desired to send the discreetest men to
represent it, and the representatives must bring up a list of the
grievances of their own district[1467]. This order resembles the
“cahiers” of the Third Estate at the meeting of the States General in
1789. All the grievances were to be laid before the general council and
digested into a set of articles explanatory of the first, and this new
set of articles would be sent to Norfolk. At the same time the
Archbishop of York and other learned men were to be requested to draw up
spiritual articles setting forth all the grievances connected with
religion[1468]. It was further resolved that Lord Darcy should be
instructed to have everything prepared at Pontefract for the meeting,
and a list was drawn up of the districts from which the three hundred
were to be summoned, with the names of the principal gentlemen and the
number of commons who were to appear from each place[1469].
After the most important business of the meeting was completed, minor
points were considered. Complaints were made of the behaviour of Sir
Henry Saville, and it was decided that the whole matter should be
entrusted to Darcy, as he was already in communication with Shrewsbury
about it[1470]. A letter was drawn up requesting the Earl of Cumberland
to surrender Skipton Castle; Lord Scrope, Sir Richard Tempest and others
were appointed to carry it, but in the end it seems to have been sent by
Christopher Aske[1471]. All the resolutions of the meeting were written
down, and a report of them was sent to Darcy[1472].
This seems to have been all the business which was transacted that day,
and at the end of the afternoon sitting all dispersed to their
lodgings[1473], Constable and Bowes being at the house of Sir George
Lawson[1474].
Next morning Wednesday 22 November the council met again. Another
obstacle in the way of peace was laid before them. There were
disturbances in Lancashire, and in Dent and Sedbergh[1475]. Derby had
written to Fitzwilliam on 19 November to say that he was under an
obligation to melt down the lead and bells of the suppressed priory of
Burscough before 30 November, but he was afraid to do so as it might
provoke a fresh rising. He therefore asked the King to grant him
respite. As the letter was not despatched before Sunday 19 November, he
probably had received no answer and the rumour that he was going to
fulfil the obligation was causing fresh unrest[1476]. When the matter
was laid before the council at York, Sir Robert Constable again took the
side of resistance, and advised that nothing should be done to
discourage their allies in those parts. William Babthorpe spoke on the
other side, and in the end a compromise was reached[1477]. Darcy was
requested to communicate with Shrewsbury in order that the Earl of Derby
might be restrained[1478]. In the meantime, orders were sent to Craven,
Kendal, Dent, Sedbergh and Lonsdale that if Lancashire mustered they
were to muster also and send word to the captain[1479]. The council felt
justified in giving this order by Cromwell’s letter and the attempted
relief of Scarborough, which were “contrary to the appointment.”[1480]
A letter was drawn up and sent to Norfolk to suggest arrangements for
the conference at Doncaster. This letter has been lost,—may we imagine
that Henry tore it up in a fit of rage?—but its contents seem to have
been as follows:—
(1) The Pilgrims complained that Waters’ expedition to Scarborough was
a breach of the truce[1481].
(2) The meeting at Doncaster was to take place on St Nicholas Eve, 5
December[1482].
(3) It was requested that there might be a truce for fourteen days
after that date[1483].
(4) The Pilgrims required safe conducts for those who were to meet
Norfolk, and hostages for Aske, as he ran the greatest risk[1484].
(5) They desired that the meeting might take place on neutral
ground[1485].
The other business which came before the council that day related to the
restored monasteries; as the rebels had put the monks in again the
latter turned to the leaders for help in the difficulties of their new
position. In reply to one of these appeals the council ordered that
Robert, Prior of Guisborough, should enjoy his office, and Sir John
Bulmer was required to see that the order was executed[1486]. The Prior
of Sawley had sent his chaplain to Aske to desire counsel touching the
house. The chaplain spoke to Nicholas Tempest, who advised him to find
friends to plead his cause at the great council at Pontefract[1487].
There remains no record of the business which the council at York
transacted on Thursday 23 November. There was probably some discussion
of the grievances which were to be considered more fully at Pontefract.
It was commonly said that the statute empowering the King to appoint his
successor by will had been framed in order that Cromwell himself might
be made the King’s heir. Earlier in the year it had been said that he
was plotting to marry the Lady Mary[1488]. Now the story went that he
was to have married Lady Margaret Douglas, the King’s niece, and that
when her secret marriage with Lord Thomas Howard was discovered, the act
of attainder against Lord Thomas had been procured so that it might
still be possible for Cromwell to marry Lady Margaret. When John Hallam
returned to Scarborough from the council at York, he reported that the
council had resolved that the statute must be repealed and that the Lady
Mary must be acknowledged as the King’s heir, for if these measures were
not taken the King would make Cromwell his heir[1489].
The commons stated very emphatically that they would have no pardon but
by Act of Parliament, and that Parliament must be held at some place
where all could come and go safely. On this point one of the petty
captains named Walker said to Aske at the council, “Look you well upon
this matter, for it is your charge, for if you do not you shall repent
it,”[1490] a prophecy which was sadly fulfilled. The commons of
Westmorland had already delivered a list of their grievances, and Aske
sent back instructions that they must inquire into the visitation of
Legh and Layton, and take the opinion of the clergy of Cumberland and
Westmorland on matters of faith[1491]. Altogether the sitting seems to
have been a stormy one, and a spy reported that he thought the Pilgrims
would come to no agreement with Norfolk at Doncaster[1492].
On Friday 24 November an order was made, by the advice of Bowes[1493],
that there should be no plundering, musters nor casting down of
enclosures until the meeting at Doncaster, unless “commanded by our
captain general or else warned by burning of beacons and ringing of
bells awkward,” which alarm would only be given on sufficient
grounds[1494]. There is no record of any other business, and the council
seems to have broken up on Saturday 25 November.
The break up of the council at York was followed by an uneasy movement
through all the rebel country. Suffolk was alarmed by a report that the
beacons of Holderness, Howden and Marshland were burned on Thursday and
Friday, 23 and 24 November, and that musters were being held
there[1495]. Sir Ralph Ellerker returned to Hull on or before Sunday 26
November, and the garrison tried to stop the communication which had
been established between Hull and Grimsby[1496]. On the night of 28
November armed men with their faces blackened went round the parish of
Chorley in Lancashire, under the leadership of John the Piper, and
forced the inhabitants to take the oath to God, the King and the
commons[1497]. Lord Monteagle could not collect his rents in Kendal, and
arrested a vicar who spoke in favour of the rebellion[1498].
While the council at York was sitting Norfolk and Fitzwilliam were
inspecting the lines of defence prepared by the royal troops. Their
arrangement was as follows:
Gonson was in command at Grimsby, and Sir Anthony Browne at Barton, with
his men disposed along the Trent from Barton to Gainsborough[1499]. Sir
Brian Hastings held Doncaster, and had fortified the bridge, while on 22
November the Earl of Rutland sent Sir Nicholas Sturley with six pieces
of ordnance, 100 men and gunners to occupy Tickhill Castle, five miles
south of Doncaster. Shrewsbury had made sure of Rotherham, as the idea
of fortifying Derby had been given up[1500].
Suffolk and his staff were at Lincoln. The Duke occupied the Dean’s
house, and in the Cathedral was the harness which had been collected
from the Lincolnshire rebels. In the castle were about 140 prisoners,
several of whom had been saved from execution by the truce. The villages
along the Humber and the Trent were occupied, and the boats had been
collected so that they might be instantly destroyed if there was an
alarm. The council, that is probably Suffolk’s council, had resolved to
build a tower on a hill between Lincoln and the Trent[1501].
The captains at Newark were Sir Francis Brian and Sir John Russell with
700 men. This was also Richard Cromwell’s post, but he had been sent up
to the King. The castle was supplied with ordnance, and the people of
the neighbourhood had been ordered to bring in a certain quantity of
grain from each township. They were submissive and feared Lord Borough
and the Lincolnshire captains. The bridge was being fortified, and a
drawbridge over the Trent was being built at Muskham, a village to the
south of Newark, but the river was very shallow and difficult to defend,
except when the floods were out[1502]. After the wet October, the
weather was better about the middle of November and the water fell. The
castle would only hold 100 men and had no supply of water[1503].
At Nottingham the castle was held by the Earl of Rutland with four or
five hundred men, and the gentlemen of the neighbourhood, who sat in
council with him weekly. It was provisioned and supplied with corn in
the same way as Newark. Rutland had built a new drawbridge and
fortifications. The country people were loyal[1504]. The castle was well
supplied with ordnance, but more gunners and powder were needed, as
Suffolk and Shrewsbury were always sending for powder, which Rutland
could ill spare[1505].
All the royal commanders were constantly writing for money, but a fairly
adequate supply was now forthcoming[1506], though the King was so
anxious to be economical that John Henneage received orders to pay none
of the monastic pensions or debts in Lincolnshire except in very urgent
cases. On 27 November Suffolk remonstrated warmly against such an
impolitic means of saving. He would rather pay the pensions out of his
own pocket, he declared, if he had the money, than that the men of
Lincolnshire should be made to remember their late folly, and to suspect
that the charges of the suppressed houses would not be paid[1507]. Half
the debt was paid and the other half held over[1508].
When he despatched Ellerker and Bowes to the north, the King wrote to
Suffolk on 14 November that a free pardon might be proclaimed to all
Lincolnshire men except those who were in prison. Henry stated that he
was moved to this clemency by comparing the repentant demeanour of
Lincolnshire with the continued rebellion of Yorkshire. Part of the
weapons which had been collected might be restored to the most
trustworthy gentlemen, to distribute among men of approved loyalty, but
great care must be exercised in this. If Norfolk summoned Suffolk to be
present at Doncaster, he must leave Sir Francis Brian and Sir William
Parre as his deputies at Lincoln[1509]. Suffolk received these orders on
the 16th, and wrote back to report the position on the 18th. He begged
the King to appoint some place for storing the weapons which were not
given back; the orders as to fortifying Doncaster, Newark and other
places had been carried out, but Suffolk reminded the King that he had
only 3600 men to hold a river line of fifty miles[1510].
Such was the general disposition of the royal troops while the Pilgrims
were holding their council at York.
Norfolk and Fitzwilliam approached slowly. On Wednesday 22 November they
had reached Towcester and received news of the alarm caused by Sir Henry
Saville on the 19th. Norfolk wrote Darcy a letter of reproof for
“innovations attempted,” which he forgot to sign[1511], and it must have
given Darcy some small satisfaction to be able to point this out in his
reply of Sunday 26 November to “your letter, as I think by the seal, but
it is unsigned.” His reply contained only an assurance that the
disturbance was entirely due to Saville, and that he desired peace as
much as Norfolk[1512]. Darcy had written to Sir Brian Hastings as early
as 20 November to arrange for lodgings in Doncaster for the
conference[1513], but the King’s captains were surprised to hear a
rumour that he intended to bring 10,000 men there on Thursday 30
November and that 10,000 more were summoned to meet at Wakefield on the
following Monday[1514].
Norfolk and Fitzwilliam reached Leicester on Friday 24 November, where
they received the letter which had been drawn up by the council at York
on the 22nd[1515]. They despatched a copy of it to Suffolk[1516] and
sent the original to the King, who replied to it on Monday 27
November[1517].
Henry’s answer is one of those documents which fill the reader with
reluctant admiration and reveal the secret of his constant success. It
shows the attitude which the King had deliberately assumed towards the
rebellion. According to his version of the event, a few unscrupulous
persons had misled the commons of Yorkshire by false stories about the
acts of the King’s parliament. The ignorant commons had thereupon risen
and forced the gentlemen to join them by threatening their lives. The
gentlemen, however, although they had taken the treasonable oath, had
succeeded in staying the commons, and after inducing them to disperse
quietly had sent two gentlemen to the King to explain their unwilling
treason and to sue for pardon. This the King was willing to grant to
them, in consideration of the ignorance of the commons and the force
used to the gentlemen, on condition that the seditious persons who had
first stirred up the tumult were taken and surrendered to the royal
justice. The chief of these seditious persons of course was Aske. Henry
put forward this account of the rising so consistently and so firmly
that he convinced not only his contemporaries but also his historians,
and it has been so universally accepted that it is necessary to consider
whether it is really true, and all the foregoing history a mere
exaggeration. The answer to this question is given by the preparations
against the rebels which have just been described. Henry was the last
man in the world to garrison a chain of forts from Grimsby to Nottingham
and to spend thousands of pounds on keeping an army under arms for two
months merely to suppress a trivial rising of discontented labourers.
The gravity of the situation was perfectly apparent to the King, but he
knew the value of telling a consistent and dignified story, not only to
foreign courts and to the south, where news came so slowly and
uncertainly that the King’s account was sure to be accepted, but even to
the rebels themselves. It is difficult at all times to believe that a
clear, firm statement is a deliberate lie, and it was particularly
difficult for the northern gentlemen to believe that the King was lying.
The whole tone of the King’s letter was such as to make the gentlemen
feel small and ashamed of themselves, and yet to suggest that if only
they would be sensible and come up to the King, as any reasonable person
would do, they might still be safe and recover their self-respect.
Henry began by marvelling at the expressions used in their last letter,
which sounded almost as if they made themselves a party with the
commons. As for their complaint that he had broken the truce by
attempting to send letters and money to Scarborough, he did not even
condescend to reply to it directly. Of course the King must be at full
liberty to send anything he pleased to any of his subjects at any time
or place.
He went on to declare that he would not send Norfolk and Fitzwilliam to
the Pilgrims until he was better assured of their loyalty. Now the
Pilgrims did not want Norfolk to come before 5 December; until then they
would have been much better pleased if he had stayed with the King. But
Henry contrived to put his threat in such a way that the readers of the
letter would probably never think of that, and would feel that Norfolk
really must be allowed to continue his journey if possible.
In the third place Henry remonstrated against the suggestion that his
own subjects, resorting to the man appointed as his deputy, should
require a safeconduct, a neutral meeting-place, a special truce and
hostages. It was not like subjects petitioning their king, but like a
war between princes. They were perfectly mad to make such a demand, and
if they were not careful he would take measures to cut them off as
corrupt members.
In the fourth place, Henry “thought no little shame” that the northern
gentlemen allowed “such a villain as Aske” to subscribe their letter
before them all. Aske was “a common pedlar in the law,” whose “filed
tongue and false surmises have ... brought him in this unfitting
estimation among you.” In the opinion of Henry and all his nobles the
honour of the gentlemen was greatly touched in that they had allowed
such a thing.
This was the boldest and cleverest stroke in the whole letter. The
gentlemen complained that the King’s minister Cromwell was base-born and
not fit to sit on the royal council. The King retorted that their leader
was a villain, that is, not a scoundrel in the modern sense, but a
villein or serf, a man born unfree. Henry’s accusation was quite
groundless; Aske’s family was armigerous, and he was cousin to half the
gentlemen in Yorkshire. Nevertheless the King’s assertion was likely to
do almost as much harm as if it had been true. The grand captain was
regarded with jealousy by many gentlemen who had not the courage to hold
his post, and if the King told them that their honour was touched in
following him, then it must be touched; the King must know best.
Finally Henry closed his letter by declaring that in spite of everything
he would still be merciful. If the Pilgrims would permit free recourse
to the King on the part of his subjects, withdraw from the castles and
towns they were holding, send the ship that they had taken to Evers, and
“show their submission by deeds,” _i.e._ by surrendering Aske to the
King, he would perhaps be graciously pleased to pardon them, though he
did not actually promise to do so, but if they did not do all this
immediately then he did not intend that Norfolk should “common with them
further.”[1518]
Though he took this high tone in writing to the Pilgrims themselves,
Henry did not neglect other precautions. He instructed Norfolk to make
sure of Doncaster and Rotherham[1519], and told Suffolk that he might
promise pardons to the gentlemen of Marshland who had entered into
communication with him[1520]. On receiving a copy of the Pilgrims’
letter, Suffolk had written to the King in great alarm to excuse himself
from any complicity in the despatch of Waters to Scarborough[1521], but
Henry was quite prepared to pass over that incident and did not even
refer to it. As he believed that Sir Robert Constable was still at York,
he ordered Suffolk to practise with the townsfolk of Hull, in order that
the town might be seized at the first favourable opportunity[1522].
Other measures were also taken. The royal spies in the north endeavoured
to frighten the commons by spreading reports that the Emperor and the
King of France were coming to help Henry, each with 40,000 men, and by
exaggerating the number of the musters at Ampthill. They reported that
the commons were in great dread of the King’s ordnance, having little of
their own[1523].
As it was the religious grievances which made the rising so threatening,
the King proceeded to demonstrate his orthodoxy in the usual way, by
persecuting the heretics. “This year, 12 November, being Sunday, there
was a priest bore a faggot at Paul’s Cross standing in his surplice for
heresy, which priest did celebrate at his mass with ale.”[1524] On 17
November Barnes was imprisoned in the Tower, and Field, Marshall,
Goodall and “another of that sort of learning,” probably Rastell, were
all arrested[1525]. John Bale was examined on 19 November concerning
certain heretical doctrines which he was accused of preaching. The
interrogatories put to him have not been preserved, but one of his
answers might have been laid to heart by the inquisitors of all
religious parties; he said that “he would fain know of his accusers who
is so familiar with God as may know that secret point?”[1526] Field and
Rastell appear to have been examined at the same time[1527].
On 19 November Henry issued a circular to his bishops. It was drawn up
in two forms, one for heretical bishops, reproving them for their
offences, the other, for those who had not gone so far, cautioning them
as to their behaviour. The bishops were ordered to explain personally
the King’s Articles to their flocks, to preach passive obedience to the
King, to observe and maintain all laudable ceremonies, and to prevent
all unlicensed preaching and contemptuous words about usages and
ceremonies[1528]. Several little tracts on the advantages of peace and
the duty of obeying the King were also circulated, and the King’s reply
to the Lincolnshire rebels was printed and issued[1529].
An allusion has already been made to the report that Henry would receive
help from abroad. A marriage between Mary and the Duke of Angoulême, now
Orleans, had long been hinted at by the French and English ambassadors
at the respective courts. On 11 October 1536 Henry wrote to Gardiner and
Wallop, his ambassadors in France, that they were not to allow it to
appear that he desired the match, but were to induce the French to make
all the advances[1530].
In the same letter he mentioned the rising in Lincolnshire, but treated
it very lightly[1531]. On 5 November he wrote again to declare that the
reports of the insurrection were very much exaggerated, that it was all
over, and the two shires of York and Lincoln lay entirely at his mercy.
Pomeroy had arrived from France to treat of the marriage of Mary and
Angoulême, but Henry was not satisfied with the form of his credentials,
which he considered too unceremonious. He had referred the ambassador to
the Council, and intended to give him no certain answer[1532].
On 10 November the Imperial ambassador was informed that the Council was
considering the French match and that Francis was so anxious to bring it
about that he was willing to consent if Mary were only declared the
King’s heir in default of legitimate issue, and given a title and an
income. The Emperor had been proposing a marriage between Mary and Don
Luis of Portugal, which Mary herself would have preferred. The
negotiations with France were used to bring the Imperial ambassador to
the point of making a formal proposal for her hand, and on 23 November
Chapuys wrote to ask for instructions, as Mary informed him that Francis
had offered to settle an income of 80,000 ducats on her marriage with
Angoulême, but her father still made little of the proposal[1533]. So
long as Henry could tantalize both monarchs with the offer of Mary’s
hand, he knew he need not fear that either of them would help the
rebels.
Such were the King’s measures of precaution; to which may be added the
vigilant watch kept upon the southern counties, to repress the first
signs of disaffection. William Constable, Sir Robert’s son, who was
wandering about the country with his schoolmaster, was arrested at Stowe
in November[1534], and afterwards detained at Ross in the Christmas
holidays[1535]. Two men were arrested and examined in London because
they came from Louth[1536], and information was received against another
Lincolnshire man, who was said to have used seditious language at
Fittleworth in Sussex[1537]. Norfolk’s complaint that he could not trust
his soldiers receives some confirmation from reports of the musters in
Kent and in Suffolk, where some of the men were heard to declare that
the northern men had right on their side and that they themselves would
not fight against the rebels[1538]. On 22 November a pedlar was
committed to Canterbury gaol for spreading sedition[1539]. From time to
time a bold parish priest ventured to express his sympathy with the
rebels. On 26 October the parson of Wimborne, Dorset, “preached
purgatory.”[1540] In the Isle of Wight on 11 November the vicar of
Thorley denied the royal supremacy[1541], and the parson of Wickham in
Hampshire fled from an accusation of sedition[1542]. The parson of
Radwell in Hertford preached against the suppression of the abbeys in
November[1543].
On 19 October Bishop Latimer sent to Cromwell copies of some ancient
Latin verses, containing a lament over the oppression of the Church, and
also some fantastic prophecies. The Bishop remarked that he sent them
because he knew that Cromwell loved antiquities, and that the bearer
would explain how some people expounded the lines[1544]. These were no
doubt some of the prophecies which were being circulated by Cromwell’s
opponents[1545]. A man was imprisoned at Bath on 20 October for
repeating a prophecy, although he protested that he did not know its
meaning[1546], and another was accused in December of speaking against
Cromwell at the Antelope inn in Worcester[1547].
During the time of the insurrection Cromwell kept himself a good deal in
the background, for the hatred he inspired was as strong a bond between
gentlemen and commons as religious enthusiasm. He was as much in favour
with the King as ever, and was always within reach of the court, but he
did not reside there[1548]. He was in London when Bowes and Ellerker
were with the King at Windsor, and Cresswell had not seen him at court
for two days together[1549]. On 21 November the King was at Richmond,
and Cromwell still was not with him[1550], but his absence did not
deceive the watchful eyes which were upon him. The Pilgrims had friends
in the south who were able to send them information on such points. One
of these secret friends came to Aske after the council at York. He found
the captain sick of a “severe colic,” which prevented him from riding to
Templehurst, as he had intended to do after the council. The secret
friend, whose name is unknown, reported that the King was at Richmond,
and “Cromwell only the ruler about him.” Cromwell was more bitterly
hated than ever, and the south parts longed for the coming of the
Pilgrims, but they must be on their guard, for on Thursday 23 November
ten ships of war took ordnance from the Tower, and it was said that
Suffolk was advancing with 20,000 men. Aske was not sure whether to
believe the last news, but he considered it a suspicious circumstance
that Sir Anthony Browne had occupied Doncaster. He wrote to ask Darcy to
remonstrate about the fortification of Doncaster Bridge and to watch
Ferrybridge and Pontefract[1551].
Not only did the rebels receive news from the south but in spite of all
precautions on the part of the government the rebel manifestoes found
their way southward, and even one copy could travel far and quickly.
Richard Fletcher, the gaoler of Norwich, was at Lynn on Sunday 29
October, and there met some of Norfolk’s disbanded troops. One of these
men, who was the clerk of Mr Fermor, son and heir of Sir Harry Fermor,
gave Fletcher a bill to deliver to John Manne of Norwich; his story was
that his master had been given this bill by the Duke of Norfolk.
Fletcher supped at the Bell at Lynn, and by the desire of the company
the bill was read aloud. The goodman of the inn, George Wharton, was so
much struck by its contents that he caused one of Fletcher’s prisoners
to make two copies of it. It seems in fact to have been Aske’s second
manifesto. When Fletcher reached Norwich he showed the bill to several
people including the Mayor, Mr Fermor, who “marvelled that such a bill
should be suffered to go abroad,” but did not attempt to suppress it.
Fletcher delivered the original to John Manne, but kept a copy for
himself, which he continued to show to his friends. At length he went up
to London, and while there Leonard Stanger, servant to Mr Willoughby,
saw the bill and “said it was naught and took it away to burn it.”
Meanwhile George Wharton of the Bell at Lynn gave one of his copies of
the bill to some Cornish soldiers who were coming from the north on a
pilgrimage to Walsingham. This gift may have had curious results[1552].
His other copy he lent out among his neighbours[1553]. At Templehurst on
18 November Aske was heard to say that he had given a copy of the oath
to a gentleman of Norfolk, who would forward the matter in the
south[1554].
Another manifesto which had probably been going about the country for
some time was taken at Bromsgrove, Worcester, on 12 December[1555]. A
fourth was circulating in a higher rank of society. On Sunday 19
November Sir George Throgmorton attended the morning sermon at St
Paul’s, and there met his friend Sir John Clarke. After the sermon they
dined together at the Horse Head in Cheapside, and when the goodman and
his wife had left the room the two gentlemen began to discuss the rising
in the north. Sir George had read the King’s printed reply to the
Lincolnshire rebels, but he did not know what the Yorkshiremen demanded.
Sir John promised to let him see a copy of their articles[1556]. They
walked back to St Paul’s together and parted, and that night Sir John’s
servant brought Throgmorton a copy of the Pilgrims’ oath, the five
articles, and one of Aske’s proclamations[1557].
A few nights later Sir George Throgmorton supped at the Queen’s Head in
Fleet Street betwixt the Temple gates[1558]. At this inn there was an
informal club of lawyers and members of parliament, who, if they had
dared to say so, were in opposition to the government[1559]. On this
particular evening Sir George met another frequenter of the Queen’s
Head, Sir William Essex, and again the conversation turned on the
northern rebellion. Sir William was curious about the demands of the
Pilgrims, and Sir George sent his servant to find and bring back his
copy of the oath, etc., which he had “thrown into a window,” _i.e._ put
into the box under the window-seat. Sir William kept the papers for
several days, caused his servant to copy them, and returned them to
Throgmorton. After this Essex returned to his home near Reading. His own
copy of the papers he kept carefully put away, but his chamber-boy,
Geoffrey Gunter, who had copied them for him, had also made another copy
for himself[1560]. Geoffrey Gunter was not discreet. He lent his copy to
William Wyre, the host of the Cardinal’s Inn at Reading, and within a
week there were several copies circulating in the town. Richard Snow,
vicar of St Giles, obtained one and Richard Turner another, but they
were uneasy about the matter, and on 30 November they gave their copies
to the bailiff and the serjeant of Reading, to be laid before the
magistrates of the town. The justices on 2 December examined all the
parties in Reading, and sent their replies to Cromwell[1561]. They were
all summoned to London immediately. On their way they met Sir George
Throgmorton, who was going to visit Sir William Essex. He was told about
the affair, and although he tried to make light of it, saying that
everybody in London was reading the rebels’ articles and Aske’s letters,
yet secretly he was very much disturbed, and burnt his copy. Sir William
Essex, who had burnt his also, was almost ill with anxiety, and on
receiving orders to examine Gunter and send him up to London, Essex set
out to throw himself upon the King’s mercy. Throgmorton, hearing nothing
from him, followed him up to London, only to find that Essex was in the
Tower and that he himself must join him there[1562]. In January 1537
they were still prisoners, and it was thought that the charges against
them were very grave[1563], but towards the end of the month they were
released[1564]. It does not appear whether Sir John Clarke was ever
called to account for his share of the business.
The presence of secret friends of the Pilgrims in the south was more
alarming than the mutterings of discontent among the peasantry. They
might be found anywhere, in the army, at court, in the King’s Council.
Henry never more than half believed Norfolk’s reports of the rebels’
strength, because he knew that the Duke secretly sympathised with the
enemy. But though that altered the direction of Henry’s fears, it did
not allay them, for a king is in a dangerous position when he cannot
trust his own commander-in-chief. There were continual rumours that
Norfolk had either gone over to the Pilgrims or allowed himself to be
taken by them[1565]. He himself said that he could not trust his
men[1566], and there was even a story that one of the soldiers had
attacked him with a dagger[1567]. The loyalty of the Marquis of Exeter,
who was sent with Norfolk and Shrewsbury against the rebels[1568], was
still more doubtful than that of Norfolk. He held his command, however,
until the first appointment at Doncaster[1569], and offered to advance
the King money for the payment of his men[1570]. As soon as he was ready
to set out in the first instance, he was stopped by a countermand[1571],
and when he did start, on 18 October, he was behind Norfolk, who
contrived to obtain all the money sent down from the Treasury. On 21
October Exeter had “not a penny to convey himself and his train toward
my lord Steward.”[1572] Money was sent to him at Ampthill on 23
October[1573]. He joined Norfolk in the end[1574], but he took very
little part in the campaign[1575]. When the truce was made he returned
to court, where his wife had been in waiting on the Queen since the
middle of October[1576]. As a reward for his services he received a
grant of the dissolved priory of Breamore on 9 November[1577]. Reginald
Pole’s brothers, Lord Montague and Sir Geoffrey Pole, were ordered to
provide men at the beginning of the rebellion, and Montague was to
attend on the King’s own person[1578].
A little more light is thrown on the mystery of the Pilgrims’ southern
correspondents by a letter from Chapuys to Charles V, which was
despatched on 22 November. It is in the form of a journal, written from
day to day from the beginning of the month. His earliest news was that
the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquis and others had gone to confer with the
rebels, and that if they had not wisely resolved on this step, the King
would have been in great danger. The ambassador’s informant was “one of
the principal gentlemen in the King’s army.” Chapuys next heard that
Norfolk had come up to court, both to justify his own action and to
forward the petitions of the northern men. Norfolk was bringing with him
two ambassadors from the rebels “Master Raphael Endecherche and Master
Dos.” Norfolk and the other noblemen “were all good Christians”; they
did not wish for a battle, and showed as openly as they dared that they
thought the rebels had right on their side.
Chapuys gave a brief account of the rebels’ position. They were reported
to be 40,000 strong, and among them were 10,000 cavalry. They were in
good order, but required money and musketeers. Their banner was a
crucifix, and Lord Darcy and the Archbishop of York were with them.
Their numbers would probably increase, as the south parts sympathised
with them, and presently news came that another province (Cumberland and
Westmorland) had risen because the return of the ambassadors was
delayed. The lack of money might ruin everything, but this would be
remedied if the Pope sent Reginald Pole with supplies, and want of money
was not felt on one side only, for Henry had complained to Mary that the
insurrection had cost him £200,000.
When Ellerker and Bowes first arrived Chapuys heard that their articles
were:
(1) that their petition might be authorised by Parliament,
(2) that Parliaments might be held in the ancient way, and that all
pensioners and government servants might be excluded,
(3) that the Princess’ (Mary’s) affairs might be dealt with by
Parliament,
(4) that the King might not take money from his people except in time
of war.
These articles were said to be signed by all the gentlemen. In the third
particular Chapuys was mistaken, but (1), (2), and (4) were all points
on which the rebels insisted, and later in the letter he mentioned that
he had been mistaken about (3); the rebels had not ventured to name
Mary, for fear the King did her harm.
Chapuys believed that the King would not give way, as he boasted that
the Duke of Orleans (Angoulême) was willing to marry Mary although she
was not legitimate, and that the King of France would help him with four
or five thousand men. Later Chapuys found that his conjecture was
correct. The King would not change anything that had been determined by
Parliament, and told the rebels that they had no right to meddle with
his Privy Council. Nevertheless the news of the fresh rising might force
him to alter his decision, and Norfolk was using his influence on the
Pilgrims’ side. Finally Bowes and Ellerker were sent back with no better
answer. “The King said he would rather lose his crown than be so limited
by his vassals.” Five or six ships were being prepared, and Henry
boasted that he would go against the rebels in person, but first he had
despatched Norfolk and Fitzwilliam to corrupt them by secret means if
possible. Chapuys, however, thought that it was more likely that the
King’s emissaries would go over to the rebels themselves.
Chapuys heard that Lord _Hussey_ had sent a message to the King that the
rebels were ready to fight, for they were a third more numerous than the
King’s troops, with provisions and money, and they expected the Emperor
to help them. “Hussey” is probably a mistake for “Darcy”; Chapuys had
great difficulty with English names, and his account of the message
seems to be derived from Darcy’s interview with Somerset Herald.
In a very interesting passage, Chapuys says that “among fifteen or
twenty articles which the northern ambassadors have proposed” there were
two which he thought unreasonable,—(1) that the King should give an
account of his expenditure, showing what had become of his father’s
treasure and of all the money he had obtained from the Church and by
taxation, and (2) that in cases of treason the criminal’s property
should not be confiscated, but should be restored to his heir, and that
the lands of Buckingham and others who had been executed should be thus
restored. Chapuys feared that if the King yielded on the main points,
the rebels might lose all by insisting on these or similar minor
details[1579]. The interesting point is that no detailed list of demands
had yet been drawn up by the rebels. They had only sent in the five
general articles, and did not think of going into particulars until the
King replied that their demands were “general, dark and obscure.” The
resolution to draw up a detailed list of grievances was taken at York on
21 November, and the list was not compiled until the council met at
Pontefract. Moreover, the complete articles do not contain either of the
two demands which Chapuys mentions.
Where then did the ambassador hear of the fifteen or twenty articles of
which these were two? The reference to the Duke of Buckingham suggests
that his informant was one of the Poles. The northern Pilgrims had no
particular interest in Buckingham, and the clause is not likely to have
been inserted in a northern petition, but if, as is possible, the Poles
were the secret friends who communicated with Aske, they may have drawn
up a list of their own complaints, shown it to Chapuys, and then sent it
north. There is one letter which may possibly be connected with this.
John Heliar, the vicar of East Meon in Hampshire, and rector of
Warblington, had fled to France some time before. Warblington was the
home of the Poles, and Heliar was their friend and dependent; Sir
Geoffrey Pole was accused of having aided his escape[1580]. On 21
December 1536, after the second conference at Doncaster, Richard
Langgrische, a priest, wrote from Havant, a town near Warblington, to Mr
Heliar beyond the seas: “I have been so far north since your being
beyond sea that I lacked messengers, but now having your servant ready
to bear my letters, I could no longer use unkind silence. I trust to
settle in my own country among my friends within a few years. Not that I
like the north so ill, but mine own country so well. Everyone desires
your prosperous return.”[1581] There is not much in this, only the fact
that a priest who lived in the same neighbourhood as the Poles, and knew
a self-exiled friend of theirs, had been in the north at the time of the
Pilgrimage, and was in hopes that better times were at hand. Still the
circumstances suggest that he may have been the messenger to the rebels.
This, however, is only a conjecture. Chapuys derived his information
partly from Mary, partly from a gentleman in the royal army, and partly
from someone at court who had good, but not first-hand, information. For
instance the informant cannot have had direct communication with Bowes
and Ellerker, or he would have known that their articles were not
signed, and that Mary was not mentioned; on the other hand, he reported
the general tone of the articles rightly, and corrected the mistake
about Mary. The identity of this informant, however, cannot be
discovered.
The Pilgrims were firmly convinced that they had the sympathy of Europe,
and in particular of the Emperor, who was very popular in England. In
order to trace the impression which the news of the rising made abroad,
it may be as well to recapitulate the various letters to and from the
ambassadors.
Henry was nominally the ally of Francis I, but relations between them
were strained at this time, as James V of Scotland had arrived in France
on 27 August 1536[1582] with the avowed intention of marrying a French
princess, although Henry was bitterly opposed to such a marriage. In his
letter of 11 October Henry instructed Gardiner and Wallop to make
themselves fully acquainted with the nature and qualities of the young
King[1583].
On 23 October the Bishop of Faenza, the papal nuncio in France, wrote to
Rome that the rising in England against the suppression of abbeys was so
serious that the King would probably be forced to yield. The passages
from England had been closed, and it was difficult to get news, but this
showed how grave the situation must be. James V was winning favourable
opinions everywhere, and was to marry Francis’ daughter Madeleine.
Cardinal du Bellay suggested that by means of this marriage Francis
might be influenced to act against Henry, who was very unpopular among
the French nobles[1584]. Du Bellay had a correspondent in London who on
24 October sent news that the Lincolnshire rebels had dispersed, but
that there was a much more serious rising in Yorkshire[1585]. After this
no further news reached France for some time. The Bishop of Faenza
believed that Henry was purposely preventing communications for fear the
King of Scotland should learn the extent of the insurrection[1586]. On 3
November there was a rumour that Henry himself was besieged in a
castle[1587]. The Pope wrote to Francis I on 7 November to congratulate
him on the Scots marriage and to exhort him not to help Henry against
the rebels[1588]. It was known in France on 19 November that Henry was
negotiating with the rebels, and James V sent civil messages to the
Pope, promising to serve him if possible[1589].
The betrothal of Madeleine de Valois to James V took place on 26
November[1590]. The papal nuncio was delighted. He reported that Francis
and James were both ready and even anxious to act against Henry.
Francis, however, said that the disturbances in England were now at an
end; nevertheless he would let Faenza know when the time came to
move[1591]. James was very affable to the nuncio, but treated the
English ambassadors with marked coldness. Du Bellay was in hopes that
the time had almost arrived to strike at Henry. The movement in England
had been premature and without a leader, but though it was now pacified,
the malcontents would rise again at the summons of the King of
Scotland[1592]. On 28 November Faenza sent to the Pope further
professions of James’ goodwill, and his readiness to act against his
uncle[1593], and on 29 November he reported that James was entering into
negotiations for a treaty with Denmark which would be very prejudicial
to Henry[1594].
From all this it appears that Francis was ready to turn against Henry if
he dared, but he was afraid of precipitating an alliance between England
and the Emperor. Faenza suggested that to prevent this the Pope might
excommunicate Henry, and make it impossible for anyone to become his
ally openly[1595]. The party in the French court which was hostile to
Henry and the papal nuncio himself built great hopes on James. They did
not realise that there was no other prince in Christendom whose
interference in English affairs would not have been preferred by the
most ardent Pilgrim to that of James V. Of all Henry’s reproaches to the
rebels the one which had most effect was that they were exposing their
country to the danger of a Scots invasion[1596], and reports were spread
by the royalists that the Scots were mustering on the borders[1597]. The
Pilgrims professed themselves willing to help the King against the Scots
at any time[1598], and an attempt on James’ part would have strengthened
Henry by rallying the whole kingdom to his side against their ancient
enemies.
The Imperial ambassador in England watched the progress of events with
no less interest than the French. His reports have already been quoted,
and need only be mentioned briefly. In his despatch on 7 October Chapuys
alluded to the Lincolnshire rising, which he believed to be more
threatening than the King would admit[1599]. His despatch was sent to
the Emperor at Genoa[1600]. Next day he wrote to the Count of Cifuentes,
the Imperial ambassador at Rome, chiefly about Mary’s affairs; at the
end of his letter he alluded to the rising, but thought it might turn
out to be nothing after all[1601]. On 14 October he reported to the
Empress that there was certainly a rebellion, and from the King’s
preparations it seemed to be a great one, but he still had no certain
information[1602]. The next day, apparently, he had obtained
information, and sent his nephew with an elaborate account of the whole
affair to the Regent of the Netherlands, advising her to help the
rebels[1603]. By this time negotiations for peace had been opened
between Charles and Francis, but the project proceeded slowly, though
the Pope was very anxious to reconcile them, in order that they might
unite against Henry[1604].
The Regent of the Netherlands sent to Calais for news on 24 October, and
professed her willingness to help Henry against the rebels[1605]. Lord
Lisle, as in duty bound, replied before 28 October that the disturbances
were ended[1606], and on 6 November received congratulations from the
Netherlands on the restoration of peace in England[1607]. These
professions of friendship did not receive much credit in England. John
Hutton, the English agent at Brussels, wrote to Cromwell on 9 December
that “there is large talking of the rebellions in England.”[1608]
Cromwell ordered him to buy “500 pair of Almain rivets,” but the
Regent’s Council refused to license the export of harness, giving the
excuse that the Emperor needed all that could be procured. Cromwell was
afraid that the rebels were procuring arms from the Low Countries, but
Hutton assured him that they could not obtain much, as the Regent was
favourable to Henry, and the customs officers were so strict that it
would be difficult to smuggle weapons. Three ships had sailed from
Zeeland for Newcastle-upon-Tyne in November which might have carried
arms, but there was only one Newcastle vessel at Antwerp on 13 December,
with some men from Newcastle and York, and one from Hull. Hutton
promised to take care that she carried nothing for the rebels[1609].
There is no evidence to prove that the Pilgrims obtained any armour from
the Netherlands, but when William Morland entered Sir Robert Constable’s
service at Hull his master gave him a pair of Almain rivets, which he
wore when he carried Sir Robert’s banner[1610].
On 22 November Chapuys despatched from England the full account of the
Pilgrimage which has been described above[1611], and on 24 November it
was noted on one of the Emperor’s despatches that the rebels in England
had dispersed only after obtaining terms which were disgraceful to the
King[1612]. Charles V, however, refused to move at all in the matter,
either for or against the Pilgrims[1613].
The persons to whom the rising was of the greatest importance were the
Pope and Reginald Pole. At the beginning of October Paul III summoned
Pole to Rome, and, in spite of Henry’s positive prohibition, Pole
obeyed. He was at Sienna on his way there on 10 October[1614]. On his
arrival he was lodged at the Vatican, and was treated most kindly by the
Pope[1615]. It is exceedingly difficult to calculate how long it took
for news to travel from England to Rome, but it seems probable that when
Pole arrived some account of the Lincolnshire insurrection had been
received there, as the Bishop of Faenza wrote on 1 November to Ambrogio,
the Pope’s secretary, alluding to the rising as something of which they
both had knowledge[1616], and on 6 November Dr Pedro Ortiz reported to
the Empress that a letter had come from the Regent of the Netherlands
with news that the rebels numbered 30,000 to 40,000 men[1617]. This was
probably taken from Eustace Chapuys’ letter of 15 October[1618].
When he heard this news, Reginald Pole cannot have failed to see that a
great opportunity lay before him. The question was how to use it for the
good of the Church. In circumstances not apparently so favourable Henry
of Richmond had invaded England, defeated the King, married the rightful
heiress, and established his dynasty upon the throne. If Pole had been a
man of that type, he would have procured letters of censure upon Henry
from the Pope, together with all the money he could raise, and would
have embarked for England at once. But Pole’s was no ignoble personal
ambition, and, although he was not yet ordained, all his hopes and
interests were bound up in the Church of Rome. Though he abstained from
taking the vows of celibacy for many years, and was thus free to wed
Mary if necessary, he never seems to have looked upon the hypothetical
marriage as anything but a disagreeable duty which he might be called
upon to perform for the good of the Church. As far as he himself was
concerned he desired no part in the government of England.
Pole was no adventurer, but he was also no crusader. His heart did not
leap up at the call to arms. He did not say to himself, “My countrymen
are prepared to fight and die for the True Faith. I must be by their
side.” His idea of his own mission was that of a highly honoured
ecclesiastic, returning, fully accredited, amidst the most respectful
enthusiasm, to his native land to reconcile to a gracious Pope a deeply
penitent monarch and a humbly joyful nation. His dream at last came
true, but the Lincolnshire rising gave no immediate prospect of its
fulfilment. In deciding whether or no to join the rebels, Pole was
really forced to choose between his opinions and his prejudices. He had
himself stated in his book that he believed subjects were sometimes
justified in rebelling against their sovereign, and that Englishmen
would in fact be justified in rebelling against Henry. But that was a
strange and terrible opinion, which he had expressed more to frighten
Henry than for any other reason. The book was kept a dead secret, and
only his most intimate friends knew its contents. It was all very well
to write such things in a book, but if it came to putting his theories
into practice, he would be obliged to steal back to England secretly, in
constant fear of arrest, to go marching about in the mud with a mob of
undisciplined commons, to hold councils with their boorish leaders in
unknown provincial towns; and in doing all this he would be acting
openly and avowedly against Henry, the theologian, the musician, his own
cousin and early patron. The idea was revolting to Pole, who was an
aristocrat to his finger-tips. Accordingly he simply remained in Rome,
awaiting developments.
When Paul III first heard of the rebellion he was anxious to take
advantage of it. On 7 November he wrote to exhort Francis I to unite
with other Christian kings against Henry[1619], and about the same time
the suggestion was made that Pole should be created a cardinal. The news
of this proposal reached England on 18 November, and was received by
Henry with the utmost indignation. Starkey wrote to Pole in the King’s
name and in the most positive terms forbade him to accept such
promotion[1620]. But Pole seems to have refused before the prohibition
could have reached him. Perhaps the above suggestions as to his feelings
are not wholly just, and his real reason for declining to stir may have
done his heart more credit. His mother and brothers were in Henry’s
power, and he knew that any movement on his part might endanger their
lives. Accordingly he declined the honour which the Pope proposed to
bestow upon him expressly on account of his family[1621]. Pole did not
realise that he had already endangered their lives to such an extent
that only the most vigorous action could save them. Henry would never
forgive “De Unitate Ecclesiastica” and Pole’s journey to Rome.
Henceforward the King would bide his time, but in the end he would
strike. The unfortunate Poles did not perceive this. They still thought
that they had not gone too far for pardon, and thus, fearing to injure
them, Reginald Pole lost the last chance of saving the lives of his
nearest relatives.
On 21 November it was reported in Rome that the insurrection in England
was nearly pacified, and that Henry had marched against the rebels in
person[1622]. This referred, however, only to the Lincolnshire rising.
Chapuys knew as early as 14 November that the Pope was thinking of
sending Reginald Pole to England, and the ambassador encouraged the idea
warmly[1623].
On 24 November Cifuentes, the Imperial ambassador at Rome, told the Pope
that according to despatches from England, part of the rebels had been
crushed, and the rest were dispersing for want of a leader[1624]. The
Pope replied that he had had a letter from France, dated 3
November[1625], from which it appeared that the rebels were holding
their own, and that they had a leader whose name ended in “folc”
(Norfolk). The Pope also said that he had sent the rebels money by means
of a secret go-between in Picardy. There is no further record of this
money. Perhaps the secret Picard stole it. At this time there was a
rumour that the bull of privation against Henry VIII had been printed.
It was not published in Rome, but it was suspected that the Pope
intended to send it secretly to England[1626].
On 26 November Faenza wrote that the insurrection in England was
appeased, and that Pole could not go there now without manifest danger,
but he ought to be in readiness, for it would be well to send him as
soon as fresh disturbances arose, the people held him in so much esteem.
Faenza proposed that Pole’s writings should be disseminated in England
to encourage people in the true faith[1627]. The letter was sent from
Paris, and cannot have reached Rome until at least a week after the date
of writing. In the meanwhile, on 29 November a letter arrived at Rome
from England which was dated 10 November. It does not appear who wrote
it, but it contained the news that there were seventy or eighty thousand
of the rebels, that the King’s troops were disaffected, and that the
leaders on both sides had determined to treat. Three honoured persons
were sent from the rebels to the King, hostages being given for them,
and they laid before him their demands:
(1) that the Pope should be acknowledged supreme head of the Church;
(2) that Queen Katharine’s marriage should be declared valid and Mary
proclaimed the legitimate heir to the throne;
(3) that the abbeys should not be suppressed;
(4) that recent statutes should be repealed;
(5) that Parliaments should be held as of old, without pensioners or
placemen.
It was believed that the King would be compelled to grant these demands,
although he was very reluctant to do so[1628]. Naturally this news
caused the greatest rejoicing in Rome. Next day arrived letters dated 12
November from the Regent of the Netherlands, in which it was reported
that Henry had quelled the first rebellion by sending the Duke of
Norfolk to the rebels with a promise of a general pardon, but that when
the insurgents had dispersed, the King seized and executed fifty of the
ringleaders. This caused a much greater insurrection all over the
island, and the Duke of Norfolk, indignant at the King’s breach of
faith, had joined the rebels, who had seized several towns and forced
the King to fly to London[1629]. It is interesting to see how distorted
the facts at the base of this spirited narrative have become as they
passed from mouth to mouth.
A more sober version of events came from France in a letter announcing
the betrothal of James V and Madeleine de Valois. In this it was said
that the rebels in England were negotiating with Henry, and that the
rising was practically at an end[1630]. There was a story afloat on 16
December that the King of England had consented to James’ marriage while
the rebels were in arms, but that as soon as they dispersed he had
written to forbid it, though his letter did not arrive until after the
betrothal had taken place[1631]. As a matter of fact Henry’s consent had
never been asked, and the rebels had not interested themselves in the
subject. The satisfactory tidings from England and France encouraged the
Pope to make an effort himself. Pole’s hesitation was overcome, and on
22 December, 1536, he was made a cardinal[1632].
It is clear from these despatches that foreign courts were bewildered
between the English ambassadors’ assurances that the rebellion was of no
importance, on the one hand, and, on the other, the exaggerated
successes attributed to the Pilgrims in the letters which from time to
time eluded Henry’s vigilance.
It is plain that neither Francis nor Charles had any real intention of
moving in the matter, Francis because he was still half-tempted by the
marriage between Mary and Orleans, and because in any case he would only
act through Scotland, Charles because he was afraid of precipitating
Mary’s French marriage, and because he was exhausted by his disastrous
Italian campaign.
The Pope was half inclined to take action, and any encouragement from
him might really have had a good effect on the rebels, but there was no
one to advise him as to the measures which he ought to take. Pole,
having twice defied Henry, did no more, and the precious time was
allowed to slip away. If Pole had accepted the Pope’s first offer of the
cardinalate he might have been in England by the time the news of the
offer reached the King on 18 November, for it was easy then to travel as
fast as a letter. Pole might have filled the pulpit at Pontefract in
which Archbishop Lee proved so ignominious a failure. His presence could
not, of course, have prevented the Reformation, but might have altered
its whole progress in England, whether for better or for worse. But
these are mere fancies. He did not come.