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parliament the pardon would be confirmed and the Act of Uses repealed,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.