HALLAM AND BIGOD
The leaders of the Pilgrimage undertook an impossible task when they
promised at Doncaster to keep the north quiet until Norfolk’s return.
When a large region has been in open insurrection for three months, it
cannot be restored to order at a word. It is true that the gentlemen did
not realise then what they were required to do. They expected Norfolk to
return within a month, and they expected that the King would make
allowance for the difficulties of their position. They were mistaken in
both points. Norfolk’s return was delayed, and Henry was prepared to
exact from the north a state of immaculate order to which few counties
in England ever attained, even in times of peace. As soon as the
Pilgrims allowed themselves to be put off by vague promises their cause
was lost. Even if they had exacted a definite agreement with proper
guarantees at Doncaster, it would probably have made no difference in
the end. Nothing but force could have induced Henry to observe such a
treaty. Even if the parliament which they desired had met, it is
unlikely that it would have achieved anything. Henry was no Charles I.
With Cromwell’s help he knew how to manage parliaments. The Pilgrims’
one chance of success had lain in battle. The two parties were very
evenly balanced. Henry had a better general and on the whole better
supplies, but the Pilgrims had the advantage in numbers and enthusiasm,
and were on their own ground. They did not choose to push the matter to
fighting, and they failed.
It is impossible to regret their failure now. If England had been rent
by a religious civil war at the very outset of modern history, as the
Reformation has rightly been called, she must have been seriously,
perhaps fatally, crippled, and prevented from taking her place among the
greater European powers. No country which had undergone the strain of
the Hundred Years War, followed by the Wars of the Roses, could have
borne in succession a third war more terrible than either of these. The
Pilgrims cannot be accused of weakness when their decision was so truly
patriotic, but it was fatal to themselves and their cause. Once that
decision was taken the result was inevitable. Henry would observe no
treaty with rebels when he could safely repudiate it. The rising of
Hallam and Bigod gave him a good excuse, but before that excuse was
offered he had already found others. The disturbance at Beverley, the
deer-stealing at Rylston, the tithe riots in Cumberland, the restoration
of the monks at Sawley—anything was a sufficient pretext for declaring
that the King was no longer bound by the terms, and for bringing the
champions of the old faith to trial and execution; but the catastrophe
was precipitated by an ally of the most fatal kind, a political
theorist.
During the progress of the first rising a glimpse has been caught from
time to time of Sir Francis Bigod. As might have been expected from his
previous history, he was by no means in sympathy with the Pilgrims. His
attempted flight and capture have already been described[267]. The band
of commons who took him all unconsciously did their cause a great
disservice. Once involved in the rising Sir Francis quickly grew
interested. The movement gave him plenty of scope to indulge in his
chief passion, which was to reform monasteries. He was far from acting
in the spirit of Cromwell’s commissioners. The welfare of the abbeys was
his real object, and he made no profit for himself, but his views were
in every way peculiar. His activities began about Martinmas (11 November
1536) at the monastery of Guisborough[268].
The resignation of James Cockerell, Prior of Guisborough, and the
appointment of a new prior by the visitors have been mentioned
above[269]. As usually happened in these cases, the new prior accused
the old one of having embezzled some of the revenue of the
monastery[270]. Sir Francis Bigod acted in this matter on behalf of
Cockerell, who is always called the Quondam of Guisborough[271]. Having
thus a footing in the affairs of the monastery, he made up his mind that
the new prior had not been chosen formally according to the laws of God
and the old custom, and that the house ought to be reformed. He wrote to
consult the Earl of Westmorland on the subject, pointing out that the
new prior had been put in only by Cromwell’s authority and that the
people did not consider him a true prior. His proposal was that to quiet
the country the new prior’s accounts should be made up and the prior
himself expelled. Then another prior might be chosen “by virtue of the
holy comentie and by the assent of all the religious brethren belonging
to their chapter.”[272] In consequence of these disturbances Sir John
Bulmer was ordered by the council of York to regulate the affairs of
Guisborough, but the prior was not deposed[273].
Bigod himself was not at the council of York, but before it met his
brother Ralph told him that the clergy were to assemble and decide “what
they judged to be reformed concerning the faith and for heresy.” After
the council was over Aske sent Sir Francis as a captain to Scarborough,
probably to look into the affair of Edward Waters. Hallam came from York
to Scarborough and reported what the council had resolved upon[274]. Sir
Francis attended the great meeting at Pontefract[275], and like several
of the other gentlemen, he wrote down his opinion on the various
questions which were under discussion, “the title of Supreme Head, the
statute of suppression, and the taking away the liberties of the
Church.”[276] His “book” made no particular impression at Pontefract. It
is never mentioned by the leaders, while the commons looked upon him as
one of Cromwell’s agents, and he was even in danger of his life[277].
Sir Francis, however, had naturally an author’s pride in his own work.
It seems to have been much longer and more elaborate than the books of
the other gentlemen. The views which it expressed were entirely
individual and did not conform to the standards either of Rome or of the
government. The author attempted to define “what authority belonged to
the Pope, what to a bishop, and what to a king, saying that the head of
the Church of England might be a spiritual man, as the archbishop of
Canterbury or such, but in no wise the King, for he should with the
sword defend all spiritual men in their right.”[278]
The Quondam of Guisborough read the book, and, by Sir Francis’ account,
praised it highly, “saying no man could mend it, and he durst die in the
quarrel with Bigod,” and when the author promised him a copy, he said
that “he would make as much thereof as of a piece of St Augustine’s
works.” The Quondam admitted that he had seen the book, but he denied
that he had commended it. He took exception to one passage, at any rate,
in which Bigod asserted that the King held his sword immediately from
God. The Quondam pointed out that “we hold opinion that the King has his
sword by permission and delivery of the Church into his hands and not
otherwise.” Bigod seems to have accepted the correction[279].
The Quondam of Guisborough was not Bigod’s only literary friend among
the regular clergy. Sir Francis was also a frequent visitor at the
monastery of Malton in Rydale, where he was told of a prophesy by the
Prior, William Todde[280]. It was at the Prior’s table that he first
heard the rumour that Cromwell was plotting to marry Lady Margaret
Douglas and to become the King’s heir[281].
Sir Francis also lent a hand in the disordered affairs of the monastery
of Watton, which was, like Malton, a Gilbertine priory[282], containing
both monks and nuns to the number of between three and four score[283].
The flight of the Prior appointed by Cromwell and Aske’s intervention to
help the deserted religious have already been mentioned[284]. The
absconding Prior had previously held the same office at St Katherine’s,
Lincoln[285]. During his brief term at Watton he had made himself
universally disliked; “while he was there he was good to no man and took
of Hallam 20 marks where he should have been paid in corn when God
should send it; and he gives many unkind words to his tenants in his
court, more like a judge than a religious man.”[286] The monks
afterwards declared that it was only the commons who were discontented
with the Prior. He had put Hallam out of a farm, and Hallam in revenge
during the insurrection brought a number of his soldiers to the
monastery, just as the brothers were sitting down to dinner, and ordered
them to elect a new prior[287]. The priors of Ellerton and St Andrew’s,
York, were both present, and Hallam advised the canons to nominate the
former, Dan James Lawrence[288]; if they did not obey him, Hallam
threatened to plunder their house and make a new prior himself.
Thereupon the canons nominated the Prior of Ellerton, but only as a form
to satisfy Hallam[289]. Lawrence never acted as prior, and the canons
wrote to Aske to beg him to appoint a new one for them[290]. By his
advice they accepted the sub-prior as the prior’s deputy[291].
Hugh Langdale, Hallam’s friend, attended his new master the Prior on his
flight to London, leaving his wife behind him[292]. A little before
Christmas she wrote to tell him how much she had suffered during the
rising and to beg him to come back to her. Her letter was carried by
Thomas Lownde of Watton Carre, who returned about 26 December. Lownde
met Hallam in a house by the Priory gates at Watton and Hallam asked him
for the London news. Lownde said that “my lord prior was merry,” to
which Hallam rejoined, “no more of that, for an ye call him lord any
more thou shalt lose thy head.” He wanted to know what was the opinion
of the south about the insurrection. Lownde answered that some
Nottingham men with whom he had ridden from London to Stamford, told him
that they wished the northern men had come forward, “for then they
should have had me to take their parts.” Also when he was in London at a
“corser’s” [calcearius, shoemaker] house between Cow Cross and
Smithfield, the good man said to him, “Because ye are a northern man ye
shall pay but 6_d._ for your shoes, for ye have done very well there of
late: and would to God ye had come to an end, for we were in the same
mind that ye were.”[293]
The sub-prior of Watton, the confessor of the nuns, the vicar of Watton,
and Anthony one of the canons, were all heard to say that there would be
no real restoration of religion so long as the King held the title of
Supreme Head, and that the only way to force him to lay it down was by a
new insurrection[294].
In this hot-bed Hallam’s plans had been flourishing, but at the Beverley
meeting on Tuesday 9 January 1536–7 he received a check, and he returned
to Watton with the intention of waiting at least until he saw the King’s
next move.
While Hallam was being persuaded to trust the King, Bigod was becoming
more and more convinced that it would be folly to do so. On the same
Tuesday 9 January he set out from Mulgrave to ride to York “for a matter
between the Treasury and the old prior of Guisborough.” He had with him
a copy of the King’s pardon, which he had been considering very
seriously. In discussing it with his friend the Prior of Malton, whom he
visited on his journey, he remarked that the pardon would enrage the
Scots, who were called “our old ancient enemies.” The Prior, in return
for the pardon, showed him a copy of the Pilgrims’ articles, and Sir
Francis gave the Prior’s servant two groats to copy it and send the copy
after him[295]. He left Malton for Settrington, where he expected to
meet his brother Ralph. Next day, Wednesday 10 January, he arrived at
Watton, still on his way to York, and went to Hallam’s house. They
visited the Priory together, and once more urged the canons to elect a
new prior[296]. Bigod drew up a form for them, in which the present
Prior was referred to as “the late prior of St Katherine’s,
Lincoln.”[297] The canons thought that this was not respectful; they
sent to Beverley for a notary and had another document drawn up, which
appointed James Lawrence to be their prior[298]. The canons gave this
paper to Wade a bachelor of divinity dwelling near by, in order that
they might show the new nomination to the commons if there were a fresh
insurrection; but they protested that they did this through fear of the
commons, and not with any serious idea of deposing their prior[299].
Hallam and Bigod both supped at the Priory. Bigod produced the King’s
pardon and explained his doubts about it. He pointed out that it did not
run in the King’s name, but “began as another man’s tale, ‘Albeit the
King’s Highness,’” and that it was in the third person throughout, from
which he judged that it was really the work of Cromwell[300] who was
higher in favour than ever[301]. In Bigod’s opinion a pardon in that
form would not prevent a sheriff from imprisoning a man and seizing his
lands and goods; besides it was dated two days after it had been
read[302]. He also objected to the statement in the pardon that the King
had charge of his subjects both body and soul. Sir Francis declared that
the King should have no cure of his soul. Hallam, the sub-prior Harry
Gill, and two of the canons sat together over the fire while Sir Francis
expounded his views to them, but at this point he drew Hallam aside into
a window and they talked privately together for a long time[303].
Sir Francis read to Hallam his book concerning the supreme head of the
Church. From that they passed to the question of Hull and Scarborough.
Everyone in the countryside, said Bigod, was convinced that the towns
ought to be held by the commons until the meeting of the parliament.
Moreover he did not believe that the Duke of Norfolk would do any good
when he came. It would be better and safer either to drive out of the
north any general sent by the King, or to capture Norfolk as he ascended
from the plain of York into the hills about Newborough and Byland, and
to make him take their oath. Hallam, by his own account, hesitated to
attack Norfolk[304]. Others, however, said that they had heard him
threaten, if the Duke were captured, to strike off his head[305].
Leaving Norfolk out of the question, Hallam was soon persuaded to revive
his former scheme of capturing Hull and Scarborough. Bigod told him that
all the Dales, Swaledale, Wensleydale and the rest, were rising, that
Sir Thomas Percy was coming forward from Northumberland, and that the
East Riding had no choice but to rise as well[306]. It is impossible to
say how much of this Sir Francis believed himself, but there had been
disturbances and bills posted on the church doors in the Dales, and
Northumberland had never been quiet since the last insurrection.
Sir Francis Bigod stayed at the Priory of Watton that night, but Hallam
went home. Next day, Thursday 11 January, Hallam took William Horskey
into his confidence. After repeating to him all that Sir Francis had
said, he laid before him their plan of campaign. Hallam was to surprise
Hull, while Sir Francis seized Scarborough; they would then meet at
Beverley and march to take Pontefract. The day for the attempt was not
yet appointed[307].
Bigod left Watton on Friday 12 January and rode to Settrington. On
Saturday 13 January he sent a servant to bid Hallam come to Settrington.
Hallam arrived on Sunday 14 January, and found that Ralph Fenton of
Ganton and “the friar of St Robert’s” were also there. Bigod told them
that he had news of a rising in Durham and another in the west country.
Lord Latimer had fled, and the commons had spoiled the property of
Archdeacon Franklin and Robert Bowes, whom they accused of betraying
them[308]. Dr John Pickering had sent news of the attack on Lancaster
Herald at Durham[309]. Fenton and Hallam both agreed that Yorkshire must
rise too[310].
Hallam returned to Watton on Monday 15 January. That day he was visited
by three Beverley men, Richard Wilson, Roger Kitchen, and John Francis a
baker. Francis was a quiet man with dangerous friends. The day before,
Wilson and Kitchen had asked him to go with them “as it were a-mumming,”
to break up an assembly of “the most ancient men” of Beverley, who were
making merry at Catherell’s house, “because they were of a contrary
faction in a dispute concerning the privilege of the town.” Francis
refused to go with them, and when on Monday they invited him to
accompany them to Calkhill he was suspicious, but they assured him that
their only object was to make merry with Hallam, and Francis agreed to
go with them. They met Hallam at Hutton Cranswick, and all drank
together at Mr Wade’s[311] house. Francis observed that Wilson and
Hallam talked together privately for some time. When the Beverley men
went out to get their horses, Hallam came with them. On the way to the
stable he told them that Sir Francis Bigod had sent the friar of St
Robert’s to Durham to find out whether there was a new rising. Francis
did not like this conversation, and to change the subject he asked
Hallam to sell him “half a score of wheat.” Hallam replied that he would
pass through Beverley on his way to Hull next day, and they could talk
over the bargain then. After Francis had mounted, the other three went
into the stable together and talked for a long time, until Francis
called to them to come. Wilson and Hallam in the stable revealed their
plans to Kitchen. Wilson promised to bring “a great sort out of
Beverley” as soon as he heard that Hallam had set out to take Hull.
Hallam asked Kitchen to be ready on receiving his message to go to
Holderness and desire Richard Wharton, John Thomson, the bailiff of
Brandsburton, William Barker and William Nicholson to meet Hallam in
Hull and drink a quart of wine with him. At last the Beverley men set
out for home with the impatient Francis[312].
While Hallam was drinking and plotting in Mr Wade’s house at Hutton
Cranswick two messengers sent by Sir Francis Bigod had arrived at
Hallam’s home. Not finding him there, they went to the Priory, where
they gave a man 2_d._ to bring Hallam to them. The messengers
represented themselves as Bigod’s servants, but one of them was Friar
John Pickering in disguise[313]. Before long Hallam came to the Priory
and they delivered to him a letter from Sir Francis. He sent news that
Durham and Richmondshire were up, that he would attempt to seize
Scarborough next day, and that Hallam must take Hull at the same time
and meet him at Beverley on Wednesday[314].
All this was read aloud and supplemented by the messengers in the
presence of the sub-prior, the Prior of Ellerton, Dr Swinburne and other
canons of Watton assembled in a chamber called the “Hal sied” [Hall
Side]. After the reading of the letter, Hallam picked out two of the
convent servants, Anthony Wright or West and Lancelot Wilkinson, to
accompany him to Hull next day, and directed the sub-prior to send them
and a third, Clement Hudson, and to provide them with money, but they
were not to bring horses or harness. His men were to enter the town in
small groups of two or three, like market folks; they were to go to the
market, and begin bargaining for goods until they heard Hallam cry,
“Come hither to me all good commons!” whereupon they must join him and
take the town. After making these arrangements Hallam left the Priory.
The canons were naturally somewhat fluttered, but either from fear or
from sympathy they obeyed Hallam[315], and the cellarer, Thomas Lather,
delivered to the chosen men 3_s._ 4_d._ to last them for two days[316].
There was no time to be lost if Hull was to be taken next day, for it
was already nearly 7 o’clock at night[317]. Taking up his station at the
Priory gates, Hallam began to despatch messengers. He sent Andrew Cante
and John Lowrey, labourers of Watton, to Kitchen at Beverley to bid him
deliver the message that he knew of in Holderness. John Prowde was
despatched to bid William Horskey, Philip Uty and Thomas Lownde to be at
Beverley next day by sunrise. All were directed to meet Hallam at
Beverley next day as soon as they had done their errands[318].
Early next morning, Tuesday 16 January, the little band set out from
Watton in the dark in order to be at Beverley by sunrise. Hallam wore “a
privy coat of fence made with many folds of linen cloth rosined, and a
privy skull on his head, a sword and a buckler.”[319]
At William Cooper’s house in Beverley Hallam met Uty, Horskey and
Langdale; he read Bigod’s letter to them and sent them on to Hull to
open communications with some friends in the town[320]. Although these
men were Hallam’s chosen confederates, they were not very reliable.
Langdale said that “what he did was for fear of his life, for Hallam was
so cruel and fierce a man amongst his neighbours that no man durst
disobey him.”[321] Both Langdale and Horskey distrusted Sir Francis
Bigod, while Uty knew Hallam but slightly. As they rode to Hull together
their hearts failed them, and they resolved to betray Hallam to the
magistrates. After some discussion they decided to warn William Crockey,
Robert Grey and Stephen Clare of Hallam’s plot[322]; they would ask them
to inform the mayor without mentioning who had given the warning.
The first person whom they visited was Crockey, the deputy-customer.
Their pretext was that they wanted to buy a tun of wine, which had been
ordered by the sub-prior of Watton[323]. It was now about 11 o’clock,
and as Hallam had intended to be in Hull by 9[324], the informers knew
that they must make haste. Langdale and Uty put Horskey forward, and he,
“abashed and trembling,” took Crockey apart. Their embarrassment alarmed
the deputy-customer so much that he exclaimed, “What news? How do ye all
in your parts?” Horskey answered, “Naught[325], for we were commanded
yesternight about midnight, pain of death, to be here this day, and for
to take the town, as I suppose.”[326]
Crockey at once went and told Robert Grey, who said “he trowed all would
be nought, wherefore let every man do his best.” Not finding much
support in this enigmatic remark, Crockey went next to Mr Johnson, an
alderman, who took him to the mayor’s house. There they found that they
had been forestalled, as “one Fowbery” was already laying the matter
before the mayor[327]. This man was John Fowbery of Newbold, a servant
of the Earl of Surrey[328]. He had taken part in the first
insurrection[329], and was in Hallam’s confidence[330]. By the time
Crockey arrived, Fowbery had disclosed everything to the mayor and
aldermen[331]; and they all went to their houses to arm and prepare to
take Hallam[332].
Meanwhile the plot was going badly. On entering Hull Hallam met William
Nicholson of Preston, who had often promised, in the case of a fresh
rising, to join him with 100 or 200 men from Holderness. It was
Nicholson who had suggested the plan of smuggling men into Hull on
market-day as if to attend the market, and Hallam had sent Kitchen to
warn him of the attempt the night before[333]. By ill-luck Nicholson had
set out for Hull before Kitchen arrived[334]. He had not received the
message and therefore had brought no men. Hallam told him to see what
friends he had in the town who could be trusted in the matter[335]. The
bailiff of Snaith had sent to Hallam after Christmas to let him know
that if he made any fresh attempt all the commons of that part would
join him, and it would seem that Hallam had sent a message to Snaith
which also miscarried, but this is not certain.
Thus Hallam found himself with no support but his own small band. The
attitude of the commons in the town was hostile, and he resolved to
abandon the enterprise. He told the men who were with him to go home,
mounted his horse, and rode out of the Beverley Gate to a watering-place
beside a windmill. Looking back, he saw the town gates were “a-sparring”
[being fastened]. At the watering-place he met Marshall, clerk of
Beswick, and John Fowbery the traitor. Marshall, who really sympathised
with Hallam, exclaimed, “Fie! will ye go your ways and leave your men
behind you[336]?” The situation was a very tempting one. Hallam was
mounted and free to join Bigod, or, if all else failed, to make his way
to Scotland. He had warned his men, and the town gates were on the point
of being shut. To go back was certain death. This history contains many
examples of weakness and betrayal, but from time to time they are
redeemed by some act of high courage and faith, such as that which
Hallam now achieved. He turned and rode back to Hull.
The traitor Fowbery played his part to the last; exclaiming, “And I will
turn again to seek for some of my neighbours that be there too,” he rode
ahead of Hallam to the gates, where two of the aldermen, William Knolles
and John Eland, were giving orders[337]. These were the aldermen who had
surrendered Hull to the rebels[338]. Fowbery called out, “An you look
not shortly of your man Hallam, he will subdue you all.” Eland answered,
“I know him not,” and Fowbery said, “Yon is he that is on horseback in
the yeatts [gates] and ye may see the people assemble hastily till him.”
Eland grasped Knolles by the arm, crying, “Go way, for we will have
him,” and they went up to Hallam together[339]. He, from outside, asked
them to let his neighbours come out before they barred the gates[340].
The two aldermen came out and asked him his name; he answered, “My name
is Hallam.” Knolles said, “Then thou art the false traitor that I look
for.”[341] The aldermen were standing one on each side of his horse, and
at the word they both attacked him with their daggers, but his coat of
fence saved him. There was a general struggle. Hallam’s neighbours and
the city guard both ran out to help their respective champions. Knolles
was knocked down, but rescued by his men, and seized Hallam’s
companions. Eland clung to Hallam, and, striking at him, cut his bridle
rein. He was afraid that Hallam would escape, but the horse fell into
the Busse ditch, and Hallam was forced to dismount. He drew his sword
and “many stripes were taken among them.” They “bickered together” until
they were both badly wounded and Hallam was at length captured[342].
There were only two men with him, Thomas Water and John Prowde[343]. As
the prisoners were being led through the streets, William Nicholson
attempted to create a diversion in their favour. He cried to the guards,
“Jesus! What mean ye? Will ye murder me now?” and there was another
fray, in which Nicholson was wounded and captured[344]. So ended the
disastrous attempt to recover Hull.
Bigod’s letter declared that he had received positive news that the
commons of Durham and Richmond intended to rise on 16 January, the day
on which the simultaneous attempts on Hull and Scarborough were made.
These messages have not been preserved, but Sir Francis acted on them at
once, and on Monday 15 January his servants were despatched in every
direction to call out men for the new rising. Besides the two who went
to Watton, one was sent to Bigod’s friend the Prior of Malton, to order
a muster there next day[345]. Another was sent to Durham with letters
for Auckland, Staindrop, Richmond and the city of Durham, enclosing a
new oath[346]. This man arrived at Brancepeth on Wednesday 17
January[347]. On the same Monday Bigod summoned to him William Levening
of Acklam, and caused him to take the new oath. He told him the news
from Durham and Richmond, and ordered him to send a summons to a muster
at Borough next day to all the neighbouring constables[348]. At night
the beacon at Settrington was lighted[349].
The nearest gentleman was George Lumley of Thwing, who was just
recovering from an illness. Richard Simpson, the constable of Thwing,
came to him as he lay in bed on Tuesday morning, 16 January, with news
of the summons and the beacon. Lumley, his wife, and the constable, were
all thrown into great perplexity, as they did not know whether this was
a muster on behalf of the King or against him. At first Lumley thought
of sending a servant to make inquiries, but in the end he decided to go
himself, “for an if the assembly were for the King, ... it was his duty
to be there. And if it were about any new business of commotion, then he
thought it was best for him to go thither also for to stay them, or else
it might be laid to his charge afterward that seeing there were few
gentlemen else in that quarter that he did not endeavour himself to stay
them.... Thinking at the least way, if he could do no good among them,
he would do no harm.” He set out, therefore, taking with him two
servants[350].
At Borough they met a body of men, who conducted them to an assembly of
about thirty or forty persons on a little “howe” [hill]. These men had
no idea why they were summoned, but had come in response to the beacon.
Presently Sir Francis Bigod appeared at the head of about a hundred
horsemen. George Lumley tried to draw him aside to question him, but
Bigod said that “he would commune with no man of any thing but that the
whole company should be privy unto.” Thereupon he mounted the hillock
and addressed those who had assembled. George Lumley afterwards gave the
substance of his speech in a medley of oratio recta and oratio obliqua:—
“He declared to the people that there were many causes that they had
need to look upon, or else they should be all shortly destroyed; for
the gentlemen of the country (said he) had deceived the commons. And
said that the Bishopric and Cleveland were up already and would go
forward to have their articles fulfilled, trusting that you will not
now leave them in the dust seeing they took your part afore, and it is
in the defence of all your weals. For my Lord of Norfolk is coming
down with twenty thousand men to take Hull and Scarborough and other
haven towns, which shall be our destruction unless we prevent him
therein and take them before. And so I and my fellow Hallam purpose to
do, for we are both appointed to meet at Beverley this night and so to
raise the country and go forward to Hull[351]. And I think it
necessary that you command Mr Lumley here to go with you to
Scarborough to take the Castle and town and keep the port and haven
from any such as should come in there to be your destruction, as I
have written a letter to the bailiffs of Scarborough that they should
help thus to do with the aid of you the commons that I shall send unto
them.”[352]
Sir Francis then brought out two letters, which he gave to Lumley,
charging him on pain of death to deliver them. One was to the bailiffs
of Scarborough, and the other was to the dowager countess of
Northumberland to request her to summon Sir Thomas Percy to come forward
with all his men, with the promise that Bigod and the commons would
restore his lands to him. Lumley opened and read the second letter, and
then despatched one of his servants with it.
After giving him the letters, Bigod continued his speech:
“Also ye are deceived by a colour of a pardon, for it is called a
pardon that ye have and it is none but a proclamation.”
At this point he read aloud a copy of the pardon, and then went on:
“It is no more but as if I would say unto you, the King’s grace will
give you a pardon, and bade you go to the Chancery and fetch it. And
yet the same is no pardon. Also here ye are called rebells, by the
which ye shall knowledge yourselves to have done against the King,
which is contrary to your oath.”
The commons, who had always been suspicious of the pardon, were very
much moved by this. One cried out, “The King hath sent us the fawcet and
keepeth the spigot himself!” while another said that “as for the pardon
it makes no matter whether they had any or not, for they never offended
the King nor his laws, wherefore they should need to have any pardon.”
After the clamour had died down, Bigod proceeded:
“A parliament is appointed as they say, but neither the place where
nor the time when it should be kept is appointed. And also here is
that the King should have cure both of your body and soul, which is
plain false, for it is against the Gospel of Christ, and that will I
justify even to my death. And therefore if ye will take my part in
this and defend it, I will not fail you so long as I live to the
uttermost of my power; and who will so do assure me by your hands and
hold them up.”
Thereupon all present held up their hands with a great shout and cried
that they would strike off the head of any man who did not do as they
did. A tall man dressed like a priest, who had come with Bigod, said
that “if they went not forward, all was lost that they had done before,
for all was but falsehood that was wrought against them.” He was
probably one of the ever-zealous friars of Knaresborough. Bigod promised
the commons that “the fat priests’ benefices of the south that were not
resident upon the same and money of the suppressed abbeys should find
the poor soldiers that were not able to bear their own charges.” He told
Lumley and the commons who were to remain with him that he had already
summoned the wapentake of Dickering to join them[353].
Then Sir Francis rode away with his horsemen in the direction of Hull,
and Lumley was left to occupy Scarborough with about forty men. His
position was a very awkward one. Bigod’s speech must have made a great
impression even on Lumley, as he was able to repeat so much of it three
weeks afterwards, and it had roused intense enthusiasm among the
commons. As Sir Francis disappeared they exclaimed, “Blessed was the day
that Sir Francis Bigod, Ralph Fenton, John Hallam and the friar of St
Robert’s met together, for an if they had not set their heads together
this matter had never been bolted out.” They were ready to be led on any
enterprise, but unfortunately George Lumley was far from being ready to
lead them. In character he bore a marked resemblance to one of Sir
Walter Scott’s weaker-minded heroes, such as Edward Waverley; he was a
well-meaning but ordinary young man, quite unequal to the task of making
up his mind, or assuming a grave responsibility. He had hesitated before
setting out, and his vague hopes that it might prove to be a muster for
the King, or that he might induce the commons to disperse, were now at
an end. In all the previous course of the rebellion he had never done
anything on his own initiative. At the present moment, although his
intentions were loyal to the King, he found himself with a single
servant surrounded by forty excited and resolute countrymen. The number
was not great for taking a fortress, but it was too many for him to
persuade or command to depart. Accordingly he submitted to circumstances
and set out for Scarborough. On the way, at a place called Monyhouse, he
found a muster of the Dickering men, as Sir Francis had expected. They
were all ready to march to Scarborough, but Lumley would take with him
only two men from each township, and dismissed the rest to their homes.
Even with this limitation his force was raised to six or seven score,
too many for Lumley’s comfort, but too few to please his followers, who
insisted on summoning Pickering Lythe to muster next day at Spittels to
give them aid if they should need it[354].
At the same time they sent to the Priory of Bridlington for help. The
prior asserted that he ordered his men not to obey the summons and armed
them in order that they might resist the rebels if they came that way,
but he was accused of arming them for and not against Lumley[355].
Lumley’s company entered Scarborough without encountering the least
opposition. Lumley issued a proclamation that no one should take
anything without paying for it, and that no revenge should be attempted
against the men who had defended the castle during the last rebellion.
By this time it must have been evening, and he went to his lodging for
the night, but the commons were not yet satisfied. They were afraid that
forces might make their way into the castle, which was unoccupied. In
order to secure it, they wished to take up their quarters in it. Lumley
would not permit this. He replied that “he would not be of their counsel
to enter into the castle, for it was the King’s house, and there had
they nor he nothing to do. And their oath was to do no thing against the
King.” In the face of this argument the commons did not insist upon
entering the castle, but they set a watch round it, in order that no one
should surprise it. Lumley went back to his lodging, where he found some
more of his servants. About midnight he sent one of them to old Sir
Ralph Evers to warn him that the castle was guarded, and to assure him
that Lumley would do his best to persuade the commons to go home
quietly, and that he hoped in a short time young Sir Ralph would be able
to occupy the castle without any opposition.
Next morning, Wednesday 17 January, Lumley and the commons met the
bailiffs of the town at the Grey Friars. The town officers took the oath
to be true to the commons according to a new form prescribed by Sir
Francis Bigod, “the effect whereof was in all things like the former
oath with this addition, that no man should give counsel to any man to
sit still until such time as they had obtained their former
wishes.”[356] Bigod seems to have drawn up several forms of the oath;
another draft enjoined the commons to keep their former oath, “and not
urging any to join them, to prepare themselves to battle against the
undoers of Christ’s Church and the common wealth.”[357]
After administering the oath the commons demanded that three of Sir
Ralph Evers’ servants should be surrendered to them. These were Guy
Fishe, Lancelot Lacy and one Lockwood. The commons had resolved to put
them to death on account of their part in the defence of the castle.
Lockwood and probably the other two also were present at the Grey
Friars. By “fervent request and long entreaty” George Lumley prevailed
upon his men to spare them.
The commons next resolved to enter the castle, but here again the
exhortations of Lumley and the bailiffs of the town induced them to give
up their purpose for the present.
By this time Lumley and his followers must have been heartily tired of
one another, and accordingly he met with no opposition when he said that
he must go home and attend to his own business. John Wyvell was chosen
captain in his place, and Lumley prepared to depart. He said that Wyvell
had enough men to keep the town, and ordered his own company to return
with him; he also took Lancelot Lacy, one of the threatened men. Wyvell
complained that he would be “left very sklender,” and that men from the
neighbouring villages must be summoned to supply the place of Lumley’s
men. Lumley promised to send him aid next day and rode off.
Lumley went first to Spittels, the place appointed for the muster of
Pickering Lythe. On the way he met small bands of commons going to or
returning from the muster. He told them that their fellows had resolved
to hold Scarborough, and ordered them to go to its defence that night
and to return home next day, as he would then send more men. By the time
he reached Spittels those who had attended the muster had all gone home,
for he had purposely delayed his arrival. He felt himself now in a
position to dismiss his own men, and therefore ordered them all to
depart to their houses and not to rise in response to any summons or
beacon unless he sent for them in his own name. In the meanwhile he
promised to lay their doubts before the Duke of Norfolk and “know his
pleasure therein.” They said that they would not rise at the summons of
any man but Lumley himself or Sir Thomas Percy. Lumley urged them to
make no exceptions—“if ye should rise at his calling or any other man’s
then were I in a sore case, for then should I be left alone.” But they
still persisted that if Sir Thomas summoned them they must rise; on this
understanding they disbanded, and George Lumley went home[358].
Sir Francis Bigod was sufficiently clear-sighted to see that Hull was
the point on which his energies must be concentrated. With Hull in his
possession, the King could overawe all the East Riding, where
disaffection was most active, but if the town were in the hands of the
commons, it would be a substantial guarantee for the forthcoming
parliament. Accordingly on the first day of the rising he set out to
support Hallam’s attack on Hull, which was of vital importance to his
success, leaving only a small party to occupy Scarborough, which was a
point of much less value, as the experience of the last insurrection had
proved. In all his movements his characteristic qualities appear. He had
very good ideas, but he was quite incapable of carrying them out. He
could see what might be done, and what ought to be done, but he had no
power of organisation. Having decided that Scarborough ought to be
taken, he despatched the first gentleman whom he encountered to take it,
without stopping to consider whether his agent was capable of performing
the task.
After Sir Francis left Borough on Tuesday morning, his movements cannot
be definitely traced for the next two days, but he had given orders for
a muster at Bainton, a place within a few miles of Beverley, on
Wednesday 17 January[359]. During these two days there was great
activity among the responsible leaders of the Pilgrimage. The news of
the attempt on Hull spread quickly. On the very day, Tuesday 16 January,
the mayor of Hull sent to the Ellerkers for help, and they passed on the
news to Darcy. Bigod’s letter had been found on Hallam, and thus they
learnt of the attack on Scarborough[360]. Sir Robert Constable received
warning of what had taken place the same day, and wrote about it to Aske
from his house at Holme in Spalding Moor. He attributed the rising to
the alarm caused by the printed answer to the first petition, and
suggested that Aske should come to him and that they might ride to Hull
together to declare the King’s true answer[361]. At the same time he
sent out several manifestoes to the disaffected parts of the country,
assuring all men that the parliament, coronation and convocation were to
be held at Whitsuntide in York; “wherefore, good and loving neighbours,
let us stay ourselves and resist those who are disposed to spoil.”[362]
He explained that he was prevented by illness from coming in person to
reassure them, as he was suffering from a severe attack of gout[363].
One of these manifestoes was sent to his son Sir Marmaduke Constable,
who despatched it to Thwing. George Lumley sent it on to Scarborough on
Thursday 18 January, with orders that the commons there must all depart
to their homes, after receiving such a favourable answer[364].
Aske was at Osgodby on Wednesday 17 January, where he received
Constable’s letter. He was very much distressed by the news, as he saw
that it threatened to destroy the hopes of success which he still
entertained. He obeyed Sir Robert’s summons and set out for Holme, after
forwarding the letter to Darcy with a request for advice and an
exhortation that Darcy would maintain order in his own quarter[365].
Darcy replied immediately that although he heard very dreadful rumours
he was able to keep his own parts quiet, in spite of the fact that he
was confined to his bed[366]. Darcy also sent congratulations to Hull on
the capture of the rebels[367].
On the morning of Thursday 18 January Sir Francis Bigod reached Bainton,
and held a muster there[368]. By this time he had of course received
news of Hallam’s failure, and his first object was to rescue the
prisoners in Hull. From Bainton he wrote to Sir Robert Constable,
enclosing the new oath. He stated the reasons for the new rebellion, and
begged Constable to send him advice as there was no man whom the commons
trusted so much[369]. He despatched three men to Hull to demand the
release of Hallam and the other prisoners, and awaited the replies to
both messages at Bainton[370].
Sir Robert Constable’s answer was soon brought. Aske was with him at
Holme and they both sent remonstrances. Their position was a very
difficult one. If they disowned the new movement uncompromisingly, they
would forfeit their influence over the commons, with the result that
they would be regarded as traitors and their words would have no effect.
As they were sincerely opposed to Bigod’s rising, they wished to check
it and prevent ill consequences, not merely to demonstrate their own
loyalty. Accordingly the gist of their letters was an assurance that the
King’s pardon was genuine, that the parliament and the coronation were
to be held in York, and that the Duke of Norfolk was coming with only a
small train.
Aske’s letter was addressed to the commons, and warned them that “Bigod
intended to have destroyed the effects of our petitions”; and that they
had done very foolishly in listening to him. However, Aske would
represent to the King that they had acted through ignorance and fear,
and if they dispersed quietly he did not doubt that the King would
pardon them[371]. Sir Robert Constable wrote to Bigod. He repeated the
assurances of the King’s good intentions. He could not come himself
because he had gout, but Aske was willing to come to them and tell them
what he had heard from the King’s own lips. The commons ought to be
satisfied with this and remain quiet until Norfolk’s coming. The present
rising was contrary to the appointment at Doncaster, and it was a bad
time of year for fighting. The best thing that Bigod could do would be
to send the commons home again[372].
These letters were received by Sir Francis Bigod at Bainton and when
they were read aloud it was agreed that a safe-conduct should be sent to
Aske, in order that he might come and speak to them. Just then
Woodmancey came to Bigod with a private message from Beverley, and
orders were given that the host should enter the town[373]. Old Sir
Ralph Ellerker had taken up his quarters there at the first alarm[374],
but he was not able to offer any resistance, and Bigod entered Beverley
at about four o’clock on Thursday afternoon with between three and four
hundred men[375].
There he received a letter from Sir Oswald Wolsthrope commanding the
commons to disperse[376]. Bigod replied that the commons would not trust
Sir Oswald, because he and the other gentlemen had deceived them
before[377]. With this reply he sent a letter to the Dean and Chapter of
York[378], to whom he announced that the commons assembled at Beverley
demanded their support[379]. This letter shows once more Bigod’s
extraordinary mixture of insight and stupidity. The commons are
represented as saying that “all will be undone if they do not go forward
whilst they yet have pledges for the performance of their petitions and
are not in captivity like the men of Lincolnshire and even of Hull. It
behoves the clergy to prevent the danger, for the King understands from
the gentlemen that the Church began the last assembly.” No warning could
have been more true, yet no attempt to avert the danger could have been
more futile than Bigod’s. When he wrote these letters his plans were all
in confusion, for the one to the Dean and Chapter indicates that he
intended to advance on York, while in the other to Sir Oswald Wolsthrope
he said that his forces would withdraw into Richmondshire, there to draw
up a petition to the King[380]. His bewilderment was natural, for his
prospects were becoming more and more gloomy.
Young Sir Ralph Ellerker, who was in Hull, made two of Bigod’s
messengers prisoners, on the ground that they were traitors and had no
safe-conduct, and sent the third back with an answer which he thought
was enough to terrify Sir Francis out of Beverley. Old Sir Ralph sent to
his son for help; the latter promised to be with him next day at noon
and gave orders for the mustering of Holderness[381]. Bigod had written
to Rudston, who had been the captain of Holderness in the last rising,
but Rudston replied that he was pledged to the King and went to join
Ellerker. Sir Robert Constable also wrote to Rudston, as soon as he
heard that Rudston was going to Hull. He commissioned him to ask
Ellerker to come to Holme with a copy of “the King’s letter,” in order
to pacify the commons. Sir Robert was keeping a watch upon Bigod’s
movements and had his men in readiness, but he had just written to Bigod
and would not stir until he had received an answer. His advice was that
Ellerker should set free Bigod’s messengers, as they had only done their
master’s bidding[382].
As nothing but messages of disapproval and news of hostile musters
poured in upon Sir Francis at Beverley that night, he and his followers
entirely lost heart, while old Sir Ralph Ellerker and the loyalists of
the town were much encouraged. Young Sir Ralph was to arrive next
morning, Friday 19 January, but long before he was expected his father
decided that the forces in the town were strong enough to attack without
further delay. No details of the fray have been preserved, but before
the late winter dawn had broken, old Sir Ralph and his men had chased
the rebels out of Beverley and made sixty-two prisoners[383].
Young Sir Ralph, who had sent to Lincolnshire for reinforcements and to
the King for ammunition, mustered the men of Cottingham and Holderness
within two miles of the town before 8 o’clock in the morning, and
arrived at Beverley too late to do anything but congratulate the victors
and carry off the prisoners to Hull. Gratifying as the victory was,
young Sir Ralph, in his report to the King, criticised some of the
proceedings. He was disappointed that no one had been killed; if he had
been there no quarter should have been given. It was also a great
blemish that Sir Francis Bigod had been able to make his escape; no one
knew whither he had fled[384]. Nevertheless, in spite of these
drawbacks, the danger in the East Riding was at an end, and it remained
only to spread the news up and down the country[385].
After Sir Francis Bigod’s flight the papers which he left in his room at
Beverley were seized by Matthew Boynton[386], son-in-law of Sir John
Bulmer[387]. Among them was the “book” containing his opinion on the
supremacy and on other points of church government, which Sir Francis
had read to Hallam[388], and some letters directed to the Lord Mayor of
York, which were forwarded by the town officers of Beverley with the
news that Bigod had “left early in the morning,” and a warning that the
city and neighbourhood of York must be kept in order[389].
Boynton wrote to his father-in-law to warn him that Bigod was thought to
have fled to Cleveland with the intention of raising the commons there.
It would be a most acceptable piece of service to the King if Sir John
could capture him[390]. Boynton did not know the painful situation in
which Sir John was placed. It is tolerably certain that Sir Francis
Bigod had revealed his intentions to Bulmer, who was his uncle by
marriage. Margaret, Sir John’s second wife, William Staynhus his
chaplain, and Ralph his eldest son by his first marriage, also knew of
the scheme. His wife and the chaplain urged him to join his nephew,
saying that the commons wanted but a head, that if one rose all would,
and that if the other gentlemen rose he must do the like[391]. Sir John
himself had no inclination for rising. He was the lessee of the
suppressed nunnery of Rosedale[392], and had been taken by the commons
with violence in the first insurrection[393], in which he had played no
particular part. He was a nervous, excitable man, very unfit for any
dangerous enterprise. Yet in consequence of his temperament Sir Francis’
doubts about the validity of the pardon made a great impression upon
him. He would not join his nephew’s hopeless attempt, but he sent his
son Ralph up to London in order to discover the King’s real purpose.
When he received Boynton’s message he was anxiously expecting news from
Ralph[394]. In the circumstances it is not surprising that he did not
take Sir Francis.
The King was well informed as to the progress of events. On Thursday 18
January Aske sent news of Hallam’s attempt, Bigod’s musters, and the
agitation in the north and west. He reported that the commons of the
north and west “repaired to no worshipful men,” but made their fellows
captains. All the gentlemen were doing their best to quiet the people,
and he begged the King to send Norfolk immediately[395]. On the same day
the mayor of Hull sent the King a full report of Hallam’s attempt and
the arrival of Bigod’s messengers, enclosing the first examinations of
six of Hallam’s men and John Eland’s own account of Hallam’s
capture[396]. Since its capitulation to the Pilgrims, the town of Hull
had been in disgrace with the King, and trade had been interrupted[397].
Consequently the burgesses were delighted to have this opportunity of
re-establishing their credit with the government. Other letters spread
the tidings of the rebels’ defeat[398].
The news from Scarborough was equally favourable to the King. George
Lumley, anxious to prove his ignorance of Bigod’s plot, resolved to
surrender to the Duke of Norfolk. He has been compared to a hero of Sir
Walter Scott’s, but unfortunately real life does not show the happy
turns of a romance; there was no quick-witted outlaw or faithful gipsy
to spirit him away to Scotland and safety in spite of himself, and in
the innocence of his heart he went straight to his death[399].
The leaders of the commons at Scarborough were Ralph Fenton and John
Wyvell. They must have heard of Bigod’s flight after they were abandoned
by Lumley, and finding themselves completely deserted by their leaders
and without support, they offered no resistance when young Sir Ralph
Evers occupied the town. The date of this is not certain, but he
probably set out as soon as Lumley surrendered himself. Sir Ralph
imprisoned Wyvell and Fenton, but used no further severity. He “gave the
people comfortable words,” and induced them to promise obedience and “to
wear a cross of St George.” The wearing of these crosses was a sign that
they thankfully accepted the pardon and meant to be as loyal as before
the insurrection[400]. Gregory Conyers, who seems to have been at court
about Twelfth Night, on his return to the north spread the story that
“the King himself of Sunday after Twelfthtide ... openly in the presence
of all noblemen and worshipful men of the country and many other ...
laid his hand of his breast and swore by the faith that he did bear to
God and St George he had not only forgiven and pardoned all his subjects
of the north by his writing under seal, but also freely in his
heart.”[401] The neighbourhood of Scarborough appeared to be quiet, but
for fear of disturbances in other parts Evers garrisoned and prepared
the castle[402].
Sir Ralph Evers had prudently taken only two prisoners, but at Hull
there were over seventy, and the first question which confronted the
gentlemen there was how to deal with them. All those who had come to the
defence of Hull met on Saturday 20 January to consider the matter. There
were now in prison at Hull Hallam, Kitchen and six of their company,
Bigod’s two messengers, and the sixty-two prisoners who had been taken
at Beverley; it must have been difficult to find room in the town to
keep so many safely. It was impossible to release Hallam and his
fellows, but while some of the gentlemen advised that all the prisoners
should be kept in ward, others wished to keep only the leaders of the
Beverley captives, while others again thought that all might be released
on bail. Monketon, who was sent by Robert Aske, strongly urged the
last-named course upon them, and it was finally adopted, partly because
it was the most convenient, partly because there were no prisoners of
importance and all declared that they had come against their wills, and
partly because the responsibility for it could be laid upon Aske[403].
The result of the attempt on Hull was to bring about the very thing that
the commons had feared, namely, the fortification of the town by the
King. When the prisoners had been disposed of, young Sir Ralph Ellerker
made a full report to Henry, with a request that gunners and gunpowder
might be sent to him, and that he might be allowed a body of two hundred
horsemen until the country was in better order[404]. The request was
justified by the fact that Bigod’s agitation had spread much further
than the East Riding. Bigod believed that Durham, Richmondshire and the
west were on the point of rising; when the immediate danger had been
averted at Hull and Scarborough it still remained to be seen whether
there might not be a more formidable host coming from the north.
On Wednesday 17 January two of Bigod’s messengers to the north were
taken. Sir William Mallory discovered one of them near Northallerton,
and sent to the Duke of Norfolk a letter from Bigod, which was found in
the man’s possession, urging the commons of Swaledale to rise[405]. The
other messenger took a letter and a copy of the new oath to Durham, and
delivered them to the bailiff and Cuthbert Richardson. The officers of
the town returned answer that the men of Durham had sworn to rise for no
one but the Earl of Westmorland or the King, and that they would “stick
to the King’s pardon.” As the Bishop of Durham was still at Norham, they
sent the letter and the messenger to the Earl of Westmorland at
Brancepeth[406]. The Earl was rather an incapable character, but at
least he had the wisdom to know his own weakness. Having heard a rumour
that he was to be made warden of one of the Marches, he had hurried
south to his uncle Lord Sandys, in order, if possible, to prevent the
dreaded appointment[407]. He left an efficient deputy in the person of
his wife Katharine, daughter of the late Duke of Buckingham, who “rather
playeth the part of a knight than of a lady.”[408] When the bailiff of
Durham brought Bigod’s letter and messenger to the countess on Thursday
18 January, she gave orders for the apprehension of any others who might
come, thanked the bailiff, and sent a copy of the letter to her husband,
directing him to show it to the Lord Privy Seal. Her conclusion was, “I
and all honest men long for your coming home.” The letter was laid
before the Privy Council[409], but in spite of the Countess’ vigour,
when the townsfolk of Durham heard what their bailiff had done, they
seized him and threatened to strike off his head if the messenger was
not released, and the bailiff was obliged to contrive that the prisoner
should be set free.[410]
It was not Bigod’s letters, however, which were the real danger in the
north, but a secret agitation going on among the commons. Its
originators are unknown. Proclamations and manifestos appeared and
passed from hand to hand, or were fastened on church doors, no one
knowing whence they came. Several of these manifestos were seized and
sent to the King. They were all of a popular character, and show no
trace of Bigod’s influence. One of them was headed, “These be articles
that men may perceive that this entreaty is but feigned policy to subdue
the commons withal,” and proceeded to show that the terms made at
Doncaster had not been kept. The abbeys had been restored only by the
commons, and many of the farmers had sold the abbey lands and fled out
of the country. A parliament had been promised in York “on the twentieth
day,” but it had never been held. Cromwell was as high in favour as
ever. No man was pardoned unless he would acknowledge the King to be
Supreme Head of the Church. Aske had received great rewards in London
for betraying the commons. Hull was being fortified. Therefore if the
commons would save themselves, they must rise at once and make their own
leaders, trusting the gentlemen no more[411]. This may have been the
bill sent up to Norfolk by Lord Scrope from Bolton on 27 January[412].
On Friday 19 January a bill appeared in Richmond ordering the commons of
every township to rise on pain of death, to seize the gentlemen and to
make them swear upon the mass-book to maintain the profit of Holy
Church, to take nothing of their tenants but the rent, to put down
Cromwell and all heretics, and to prevent all lords and gentlemen from
going up to London. If any gentlemen refused to take the oath he was to
be put to death and his heir seized and sworn in his stead. This bill
was taken by Sir Thomas Wharton on Sunday 21 January[413].
The fact that this agitation was going on further north was known at
Hull, and it was feared that Sir Francis Bigod had fled only to raise
Cleveland[414]. On Saturday 20 January Darcy informed Shrewsbury that
the commons of the north were coming forward, and that they entered the
houses of Lord Latimer, the Earl of Westmorland, and other gentlemen who
had gone up to the King, and made inventories of their goods with the
intention of seizing them if their owners did not return at once[415].
Lord Latimer heard on the same day that the commons of Richmondshire had
seized his house at Snape. He was on his way to London, but had been
ordered to turn back and wait on Norfolk in York[416]. The property of
the detested Beckwith at Stillingfleet was plundered again on Friday 19
January[417].
In addition to the disturbances in Richmond and Durham, no one knew what
might be happening in Northumberland. When the first news of Bigod’s
rising spread to Lincolnshire, it was said that Sir Thomas Percy had
seized Scarborough[418]. The suspicion against him increased when George
Lumley came to York on Saturday 20 January, and laid before Sir Oswald
Wolsthrope his connection with the rising[419]. It is true that he was
able to state definitely that Sir Thomas Percy had not been at
Scarborough, but he represented that the commons of the neighbourhood
were so deeply attached to Sir Thomas that he was the “lock, key and
ward of this matter.” When examined, Lumley denied that, to his
knowledge, Sir Thomas had had any complicity in the rising; he used
these words to indicate Sir Thomas’ popularity[420].
The parson of Leckonfield, Sir Thomas’ chaplain, was at Beverley during
Hallam’s attempt. Bigod asked him whether his master was prepared to
take part in another insurrection, and he replied that Sir Thomas would
rise for no man[421]. As soon as Hallam’s failure was known, the
chaplain hurried off to Northumberland with the news[422]. He travelled
so fast that he arrived before Bigod’s own letter to Sir Thomas, which
was sent to the dowager countess of Northumberland and forwarded by her
with a message that Sir Thomas “should take a substantial way in that
matter upon her blessing.” Sir Thomas declared that he understood this
to mean that he should have nothing to do with Bigod, and that he was
prevented from sending the letter and the messenger who brought it up to
the King only by his respect for his mother[423]. Whatever the countess
may really have meant, for her words scarcely seem to bear her son’s
interpretation, he was not likely to make any move after he had heard of
Hallam’s ill-success, but he was already compromised in more ways than
one. On Wednesday 17 January he had proclaimed a county meeting at
Morpeth. Sir John Widdrington and Lord Ogle prohibited it. The Percys,
contrary to their wont, took this prohibition very well. The coincidence
of the proposed meeting with Bigod’s rising is suspicious, but as Sir
Thomas acquiesced in its abandonment, it was probably no more than an
unfortunate chance. On Monday 22 January the common people swore that
they would burn all Tynedale and Reedsdale, but as the reivers were
Percy’s friends, this was a movement against, rather than for, him. Lord
Ogle succeeded in quieting the people[424].
The threat of a Northumberland rising was hanging over the heads of the
gentlemen at Hull when on Tuesday 23 January they examined Hallam and
his accomplices. In consequence of this Aske warned them not to proceed
to execution as yet, for fear of provoking the north[425], and his
advice was so far followed that some of the prisoners were sent to York
to await Norfolk’s arrival[426].
The special commissioners who examined them on 23 January were William
Rogers the mayor, Sir Ralph Ellerker the younger, Sir John Constable of
Holderness, Sir William Constable, Sir Christopher Hillyard, and Richard
Smytheley. The chief informer, John Fowbery, was not examined, or at
least his evidence has not been preserved. The justices heard Horskey
and Langdale, who had turned King’s evidence and had accused the
sub-prior and several of the canons of Watton[427]. Hallam was carefully
examined on the 24th and 26th, but said nothing to implicate the monks
of Watton[428]; in fact he did not accuse anyone but those who were
already prisoners[429]. On 25 January William Nicholson of Holderness,
who had tried to rescue Hallam, Roger Kitchen and John Francis of
Beverley were examined. William Crockey the deputy-customer to whom
Horskey and Langdale revealed the plot gave his evidence on Friday 26
January. The rest of the prisoners were servants and labourers who were
examined on Friday and Saturday[430].
The case against all these men was perfectly clear. They had risen in
open rebellion since the pardon. The extenuating circumstance that the
King had deliberately provoked the rising could not be pleaded by them,
and the only question was how far the King would be inclined to show
mercy. On this point the gentlemen were still in some doubt, and
accordingly only Hallam and two others, probably Nicholson and Kitchen,
were condemned to death[431]. The rest were remanded to await the coming
of the Duke of Norfolk[432]. The three were executed before 4 February
1536–7[433], but probably not until Norfolk had been consulted about
their fate.
On the information of Horskey and Langdale three of the canons of Watton
were arrested before Tuesday 30 January[434]. These were Dan Harry Gyll
the sub-prior, Thomas Lather the cellarer and granator, and Richard
Wilkinson the cellarer of the kitchen. When examined they all three
confessed that they had taken part in the election of a new prior, but
all declared that it had been done through fear of the commons. They
also confessed that it was the general opinion of the monastery that the
King could not be Supreme Head of the Church, that they had heard Sir
Francis Bigod express doubts as to the validity of the pardon, and that
they had sent three men with money to take part in Hallam’s enterprise.
The two cellarers professed to have opposed the sending of the men; they
said that they were unpopular in the monastery because they were the
servants of the prior appointed by Cromwell. Gyll did not attempt to
defend himself. The canons were reserved for Norfolk’s judgment[435].
Another instance of a monastery becoming implicated, justly or unjustly,
in the rebellion occurred at this time. Thomas Hungate, a servant of Sir
Arthur Darcy, informed Sir Oswald Wolsthrope that George Shuttleworth, a
servant of Sawley Abbey, had been in Durham when the herald was attacked
(on or before 9 January)[436] and had given out that he was going to Sir
Thomas Percy for counsel[437]. Shuttleworth was arrested about Wednesday
24 January. As suspicion had been so strongly excited against Sir
Thomas, this information was naturally believed to be very important.
When it became known that Shuttleworth had been in company with William
Leache, one of the Lincolnshire refugees, the case against Sir Thomas
and the Abbot of Sawley seemed to be almost proved[438]. Yet when the
matter is as far as possible unravelled, with the help of Shuttleworth’s
deposition, their guilt still remains dubious.
The Abbot of Sawley’s letter to Aske has already been mentioned. Sir
Thomas Percy was regarded as the founder of Sawley, that is, as the
representative of William, Lord Percy, who founded and endowed the
monastery[439]. The living founder of a monastery was the person to whom
the monks usually appealed in any secular difficulty. After writing to
Aske, the Abbot of Sawley decided to apply to his founder also, and
wrote a supplication to Sir Thomas Percy[440]. He took counsel in this
matter with no one but three monks of the house, his chaplain Estgate,
Bradforde and Parishe.
Estgate took this letter to Sir Stephen Hamerton whom he found hunting
at Settle Spring. Estgate offered him for nothing a wood which he had
wished to buy from the Abbey two years ago, but Sir Stephen refused such
a dangerous gift. The chaplain told him of the letter to Sir Thomas
Percy, and repeated the most important part of its contents,—that the
commons had restored the monks to their abbey, and that the monks begged
for Sir Thomas’ favour. Hamerton said that he did not see what Sir
Thomas could do for them “but they might do as they list,” and Estgate
left him without any further conversation upon the subject[441].
When Shuttleworth returned with Robert Aske’s letter, the Abbot
straightway despatched him to Sir Thomas Percy with the supplication. At
this point a serious difficulty in chronology arises. Shuttleworth said
that he set out at once and reached Richmond on Innocents’ Day, 28
December 1536[442]. Sir Thomas Percy supported this statement by saying
that he received the Abbot’s letter a month or six weeks before Bigod’s
rising[443]. Against this is to be set the fact that Shuttleworth was
accused of having been in Durham on his way _to_ Sir Thomas, on or
before 9 January 1536–7[444], and that he himself said that he had been
with Robert Aske at Aughton at a time when Aske must have been in
London[445]. William Maunsell, who took part in arresting Shuttleworth
on 24 January, implied that the latter had just returned from his
errand[446]. The only deduction from all this conflicting evidence is
that it is impossible to determine exactly when Shuttleworth’s errand
was performed; more is known about the way in which he performed it.
The Abbot delivered to him 10_s._ for his expenses, “a bent royal of
gold for a token to Sir Thomas Percy,” and the supplication, the
contents of which Shuttleworth did not know. After receiving these
articles, Shuttleworth went to Richard Broderton’s inn near the Abbey
gates, to have a drink before setting out on his new journey. A friend
asked him to come next day to “an ale,” and he was obliged to refuse the
invitation because he had an errand to Sir Thomas Percy. Another man
heard this, and offered to accompany Shuttleworth, saying that he also
had an errand to Sir Thomas. They set out together, and Shuttleworth
soon discovered that his companion was William Leache, a Lincolnshire
rebel who had been excepted from the King’s pardon.
Leache told Shuttleworth that he had received a letter signed by Lord
Darcy, Robert Aske and Sir Thomas Percy summoning Lincolnshire to rise
again. He had sent this letter into Lincolnshire with one of his own to
the same effect, but before any answer came “they in Yorkshire took
another way with them.” The letter had fallen into the King’s hands and
consequently Leache had been excluded from the pardon. Now he was going
to Sir Thomas Percy to ask for his intercession with the Duke of
Norfolk. He showed Shuttleworth one of the letters, but it is not clear
whether this was his own letter, or the one alleged to have been signed
by Darcy, Aske and Percy[447]. This letter to Lincolnshire must have
been written before the second appointment at Doncaster, when they “took
another way,” if it was ever written at all, but the whole story is
improbable, for Darcy, Aske and Percy were never together, except for a
few days before the first appointment at Doncaster, and Leache had been
excepted out of the Lincolnshire pardons from the beginning, before the
King was even aware that Yorkshire had risen[448].
Leache and Shuttleworth spent the first night of their journey at
Kettlewell, and the next at Ralph Gower’s house in Richmond, where they
fell in with a party of five priests and two or three laymen. On hearing
that Shuttleworth came from Sawley the laymen said, “Fye on them that
dwell nigh about that house, that ever they would suffer the monks to be
put out of it. And that was the first house that was put down in this
country. But rather than our house of Saint Agatha should go down, we
shall all die; and if any insurrection should happen here again, where
there was but one in the same before, now there would be three.”
Next night the travellers were in Durham, but Shuttleworth said nothing
about their adventures there. On the following day they reached Prudhoe,
but Sir Thomas Percy was out hunting, and Shuttleworth did not see him
until 9 o’clock on the morning after he arrived. Shuttleworth presented
the letter and the token, and Sir Thomas told him he should receive his
answer in the afternoon. When Shuttleworth came again, Sir Thomas gave
him a verbal message that the Abbot should “make no resistance if any
commission came down from the King, but speak fair to such as should
come withal, for the Abbot had as many friends as any man, and if any
house should stand, his was like to do so.” Sir Thomas also told him to
desire Sir Stephen Hamerton’s best counsel for the Abbot and the house,
and as a token that the message came from Sir Thomas he was to say “that
I [Sir Thomas] spake to him at our last being together that he should be
good unto my lady my mother.”[449]
Leache had not yet accomplished his ambiguous errand. After Shuttleworth
left Sir Thomas, Leache had an interview with the latter, but what
passed between them Shuttleworth did not know[450]. The two men went
back to Sawley together, but when the Abbot was told who Leache was, he
ordered him to “avoid that quarter,” lest he should bring trouble upon
the house[451].
The supplication which aroused so much curiosity in Sir Thomas Percy’s
enemies afterwards fell into Norfolk’s hands[452]. It appears to be a
very harmless document. The monks of Sawley begged Sir Thomas to
consider their present need, and to let them know his pleasure for the
succour of their house. They feared their “most sinister back friend Sir
Arthur Darcy,” and wished to know whether Sir Thomas would advise them
to follow the counsel of the neighbouring commons and remain in their
house. Sir Stephen Hamerton and Nicholas Tempest had been true friends,
and the monks begged Sir Thomas to give them some reward, as they
themselves could requite them only by their prayers. The one passage to
which any seditious meaning could be attached ran as follows:—“The whole
noise and bruit in these parts is, the captain should have left and
discharged himself of the captainship, but also is judged and supposed
an order to be taken for religious houses suppressed, the farmers or
other to enter and occupy, and the abbot or prior and brethren to have
and taken at their delivery their necessaries, and so to be avoided of
possession unto the Parliament, whereof not only the place but also the
time is as yet not perceived to be; wherefore men’s hearts hath no
little suspect, vexation, and great disdain, in doubting the great
enormities and danger that may ensue and come to them.”[453] Even this,
which is the most incriminating part of the letter, is too vague to bear
any genuinely treasonable interpretation. The unfortunate monks, in
fact, only begged to be told what they ought to do, as they were quite
ready to submit to any orders which they might receive from a competent
authority; but no one was in a position to relieve their perplexity. The
Abbot was accused of being the author of the bills which were posted on
the church doors in the neighbourhood, but no evidence of this was
produced[454].
The most suspicious circumstance in the communications between Sir
Thomas Percy and the Abbot was the presence of William Leache. He was a
man of a savage, determined character. On this occasion he made his
escape to Scotland, but in 1541 he and another fugitive murdered
Somerset Herald near Dunbar, as he was returning from a mission to James
V. For this barbarous deed they were both surrendered to the English
government and executed[455]. It can have been with no very peaceful
object that such a man appeared at Sawley, visited Sir Thomas Percy, and
returned to Sawley again; but the nature of his errand was never
discovered.
The gentlemen had accomplished a good deal in the week which followed
Bigod’s rising. They had arrested and examined most of his accomplices,
they were accumulating evidence against Sir Thomas Percy, and George
Lumley was a prisoner in York. The only remaining task was the capture
of Bigod himself. This did not appear to be a very difficult affair, as
everyone had turned against him. The gentlemen were trying to arrest him
as a rebel against the King, and the commons were ready to put him to
death as a traitor to the commons.
The particulars of Sir Francis’ flight from Beverley on Friday 19
January are not known, but the commons declared that he had deserted
them. His only idea was to go home again, and as he neared Settrington
he sent forward his horsekeeper Harry Soulay to discover how he would be
received. At Yeddingham Bridge Soulay heard the threats of the
disappointed rebels, and came back to warn his master to go no further.
Bigod took refuge at William Middlewood’s house in Ebberston, and sent
Soulay on again, with orders to go right to Settrington for news and to
return to Ebberston the same night. Before Soulay’s return Middlewood’s
brother-in-law came in and reported some of the angry sayings against
Sir Francis which he had heard by the way. Sir Francis was so much
alarmed that he set out again and rode all night for his castle at
Mulgrave. On the morning of Saturday 20 January he reached Sandsend, a
little village on the coast a couple of miles east of Mulgrave. Soulay,
on returning to Ebberston to find his master, was seized by the commons
and would have been beheaded if he had not been rescued by Sir George
Conyers.
The feeling against Sir Francis was so strong that his inveterate enemy
Gregory Conyers for the moment took up the popular cause. His one object
was to be on the opposite side to Sir Francis, and consequently when the
latter changed sides, and again when both sides turned against him,
Gregory’s position was a complicated one. On Saturday 20 January he
proclaimed to the fishermen all along the coast that Sir Francis Bigod
was a traitor to the King and to the commons, and ordered them to keep
watch that he did not escape by sea[456]. This formula linking the King
and the commons was the usual one, which occurs in the Lincolnshire oath
and elsewhere. It does not imply that Gregory was commissioned to act
for the King. William Neville, brother of Lord Latimer, and Serjeant
Roger Middlewood went to Mulgrave to seize Bigod’s goods[457]. Gregory
Conyers arrived there shortly afterwards; hearing of the previous
seizure, he said to Bigod’s wife, “Madame, and here are twain come for
the commons,” and seized what remained in the commons’ name, on the
grounds that Sir Francis had betrayed them[458].
While this was going on Bigod was in hiding somewhere near his despoiled
castle. On Sunday 21 January Gregory Conyers went to Hinderwell in
search of him, warning all the country to give the fugitive no aid, but
at this point Gregory seems to have abandoned his alliance with the
commons, as he joined the King’s representatives, Neville and
Middlewood[459]. They were so close upon Bigod’s track that they
surprised him in his hiding-place, and Gregory seized him by his
sleeveless coat, but Bigod slipped off the loose garment and fled into
the woods on foot. His assailants had to be satisfied with the capture
of his servants and horses[460]. Dismounted as he was, Bigod eluded
pursuit for nearly three weeks[461].
On Thursday 25 January young Sir Ralph Evers reported to the King the
retaking of Scarborough and Bigod’s flight[462]. He petitioned Cromwell
to further his suit for Sir Francis’ lands[463]. Next day he wrote again
enclosing the names of those who had been rulers of the commons in the
last insurrection but had served the King well on this occasion. He
hoped that the King would acknowledge their services, and particularly
praised Sir John Bulmer’s son-in-law Matthew Boynton[464].
The King must have been pleased to find that his policy had produced
such excellent results. The breach between the gentlemen and the commons
was now complete. The former had been busy quieting the latter, while
Henry felt himself absolved by the rising from any obligation to keep
his promises.
On receiving young Sir Ralph Ellerker’s report dated 20 January, the
King sent letters to both the writer and his father. He thanked them for
their services, sent money and ammunition, and gave permission for 100
horsemen to be retained in Hull, but he was displeased that the
prisoners had been admitted to bail. He ordered that they should be
re-arrested and tried, and as many as possible executed; for this
purpose he sent a commission to the Ellerkers. These letters are
undated, but probably reached Hull before 24 January, the day of
Hallam’s trial[465]. John Eland was thanked and rewarded for his service
in taking Hallam[466].
Sir Arthur Darcy wrote to his father from court on 23 January that the
King had received Lord Darcy’s letters very graciously[467], and next
day Henry wrote himself to Darcy to thank him for his services and to
order him to victual Pontefract Castle secretly, so that he and his sons
might hold it if the people rose again[468]. On Thursday 25 January
Henry thanked Shrewsbury for his “discreet proceedings” in the “new
tragedy moved by that false traitor Bigod.”[469] The old Earl had
written to his master that he was very ill and feared he should “not
long be here.”[470] The King in reply sent him his own physician Dr
Butts, and expressed the hope that he would see and thank Shrewsbury in
person on “his repair into those parts, which, God willing, shall be
shortly.” The King repeated the contents of his letter to Darcy, and
declared that so long as Darcy did his duty, he would regard him with as
much favour as if the rebellion had never occurred[471]. Darcy’s pardon
was made out on 18 January[472].
The King wrote to Robert Aske on 24 January thanking him for his letter
and goodwill. Henry concluded by saying that he “would be glad to hear
of some special deed in answer to our expectations.”[473] The meaning of
this was clear. Aske was already regarded with suspicion in Yorkshire on
account of his intercourse with the King. If he took a leading part in
the capture and execution of the new rebels, his influence over the
commons would be completely destroyed. Then Henry, if he pleased, might
safely execute the discredited captain, or extend to him a contemptuous
pardon if he seemed likely to become a useful tool. Aske did not take
the hint. Throughout the rebellion he had been acting not for himself
but for his cause. He was entirely opposed to Bigod’s attempt, because
he saw that it was foolish, useless, and dangerous. As he held this
opinion he did his best to suppress the movement, but he was full of
pity for the unfortunate men who had taken part in it. His voice was
always on the side of mercy. He advised that Bigod’s messengers should
be released from Hull, that the prisoners should be bailed, and that
Hallam’s execution should be delayed in the hope of a pardon. Several of
those who had been with Bigod threw themselves upon Aske’s mercy, and he
promised to try to procure their pardon[474].
Perhaps Aske still believed in the King’s humane intentions, but it is
scarcely possible that he should have kept this illusion after Henry’s
letter, particularly in face of the opposite conduct of the other
gentlemen. They for the most part realised that they had made their
choice between the King and the cause, and that it remained for them to
make themselves secure with the King by denouncing others. Beneath the
steady stream of gracious messages which still flowed down from the
court, there is an eddy in the opposite direction of messages vaguely or
definitely hostile to the former leaders of the Pilgrimage, sent up by
their former comrades.
Eland and Knolles had taken an active part in the surrender of Hull to
the insurgents, but they had now redeemed their characters by capturing
Hallam. Sir Ralph Ellerker had been one of the messengers to the King,
and Nicholas Rudston had been the chief captain of Holderness, but they
were now anxious to retrieve themselves by implicating Sir Robert
Constable in the new rising. They discovered a means by which this might
be done in the letter which Aske and Constable had written to Rudston
before Bigod’s flight from Beverley; it contained the advice that
Bigod’s messengers should be released, as they had only done their
master’s errand[475]. The letter was delivered to Rudston on the morning
of Friday 19 January, just before the advance on Beverley; after the
gentlemen had entered the town Rudston showed the letter to young Sir
Ralph Ellerker whom he met on Westwood Green. Rudston read it aloud in
the presence of two of Sir Robert’s servants, who perceived that it was
considered treasonable[476].
On Saturday 20 January at Hull Sir Ralph Ellerker caused his chaplain to
make a copy of the letter to be sent up to the King, while Rudston went
to dine with Sir Robert Constable on Sunday 21 January. Constable’s
servants must have warned him that the letter was being used against
him, for he asked Rudston to show it to him, and inquired what fault he
found with it. Rudston seems to have implied that it was a very faulty
performance in every respect, but he said, “The greatest fault that Sir
Ralph Ellerker and I do find is against the messengers that ye write
for.” Sir Robert unwisely attempted a prevarication, saying that there
was no harm in that, for he meant Langdale and Horskey, who went to Hull
to buy their Lenten store. Rudston answered that Sir Ralph Ellerker
thought that he had meant Bigod’s messengers. Sir Robert retorted with
an oath, “And if so, what harm?” and gave back the letter. Later in the
day he asked Rudston to show the letter to Dr Waldby. Rudston handed it
over, and Sir Robert stood talking about it beside the Doctor. Presently
he took it out of Waldby’s hands “and conveyed it into his bosom or
sleeve.” Rudston saw this, but pretended to notice nothing. Happening to
find Waldby by himself, Rudston asked him whom Sir Robert had really
meant, and Waldby admitted that the allusion was to Bigod’s messengers.
The conclusion is rather humorous:
“Within a while I [Rudston] put my hand into my bosom and said, as if
speaking to myself, ‘What have I done with the letter?’ adding,
‘Marry, Mr Constable hath it himself.’ The Doctor said, ‘Even so hath
he.’ And forasmuch as I did somewhat mistrust the said Sir Robert, and
perceived indeed that he had conveyed the letter, I durst not ask the
letter of the said Sir Robert, and specially because I was sure of a
copy.”[477]
Rudston might well be afraid of Sir Robert; it is a matter for wonder
that he had sufficient impudence to go and dine at his house, when he
was doing his best to ruin him. It was unfortunate for his case that Sir
Robert tried to prevaricate about the persons mentioned in his letter,
as he was afterwards accused of having asked Rudston to deliver
Hallam[478]. Constable could never have imagined that he could procure
Hallam’s release by letter; such an attempt would have been both
treasonable and useless, but the ambiguity of his phrase enabled his
accusers to read that meaning into the words.
For some reason, both Aske and Constable were firmly convinced that Sir
Ralph Ellerker had brought north a letter from the King. Constable asked
to be allowed to read it in his letter about the messengers[479]. On
Sunday 21 January Aske, who had returned from Holme to Aughton, wrote to
ask Ellerker to send him a copy of the mythical letter from the King.
Aske’s request has not been preserved. Sir Ralph Ellerker replied that
he had no such letter; his conclusion is curious: “I will be glad to
confer with you at Ellerker if you will send me word, for I am not so
good a clerk as to read your letter perfectly.”[480] Aske’s letter was
probably the one in which he recommended Ellerker not to execute Hallam
while the north was still so much disturbed, and this passage in
Ellerker’s reply must be an allusion to the same dangerous subject.
Ellerker was collecting evidence against Constable; he may have wished
to entrap Aske also, but it is possible to give him the benefit of the
doubt. The Ellerkers had an old feud with Sir Robert Constable, which
revived as soon as the enforced truce of the Pilgrimage ended, but the
Ellerkers and the Askes were friends and related by marriage. Young Sir
Ralph never produced Aske’s letter as evidence against him, and his
comment on the letter which he could not read perfectly may have been
meant as a warning that there was something in the letter which ought
not to have been written. In response to this invitation Aske set out
for Ellerker. On the way he met William Levening and one Fulthorp, who
appealed to him to help them, as they had been forced to take part in
Bigod’s rising against their will. Levening said that he had already
been to Sir Robert Constable and to Lord Darcy, in order to enlist their
sympathy. Both he and Fulthorp promised, if Aske would take their names,
to be ready to appear before Norfolk whenever he summoned them. Aske
undertook to do his best for them, and afterwards requested William
Babthorpe to lay their case before the Duke[481].
The gentlemen who had been loyal throughout the insurrection were now
busily accumulating evidence against the late leaders. Sir Henry Saville
on 29 January sent to Cromwell a letter from the Vicar of Brayton which
showed that the Vicar had acted by Aske’s orders. Sir Henry mentioned a
summons which Darcy had sent out to the gentlemen of the Honour of
Pontefract, calling them to assemble at Pontefract Castle. Before they
came he had surrendered the castle, and on their arrival they all took
the Pilgrims’ oath. Sir Henry Saville reported that there had been riots
between the servants of the Abbot of Kirkstall and those of Sir
Christopher Danby. His advice was that the abbot should be deposed, and
he suggested that the real movers in the last insurrection had never
appeared, but “had set light persons on to prove the country.”[482]
The easiest way for anyone to prove his loyalty was by accusing someone
else, and Sir George Darcy reported that there were “great exclamations
against Aske.” The King’s orders to Darcy to hold Pontefract Castle with
his two sons, though put in the form of a compliment, were really a
source of strife, for Lord Darcy found it impossible to work with Sir
George Darcy, who did his best to obtain evidence against his father.
Through Shrewsbury’s mediation, Sir George had a fairly amicable meeting
with his father on Friday 26 January[483], but as soon as the King’s
orders concerning Pontefract arrived, about Monday 29 January, trouble
followed. On receipt of the King’s letter, Sir George wrote to his
father to ask him what he meant to do. Darcy replied that he did not
wish to make preparations until Sir George came in person to see the
letter which he had received, and that as Norfolk was expected on
Saturday 3 February, and as the country was quiet, he thought that there
would be no harm in waiting until Norfolk arrived before doing
anything[484]. In fact this cunningly framed compliment placed Darcy in
such a position that whatever he did could be used as evidence against
him. If he set to work energetically to provision Pontefract Castle, he
would be accused of preparing for a new insurrection, but when he chose
the other course of doing nothing without express orders, he was
represented as being slack and reluctant in the King’s service.
As soon as Lord Darcy had declared his opinion, Sir George took the
opposite side. He wrote back on Tuesday 30 January that the country was
far from quiet and that he dared not wait the three days which must
elapse before Norfolk arrived without beginning to prepare the castle;
neither did he dare to leave the castle even for the few hours which
were required for a visit to Templehurst, and he therefore refused to
come to his father to see the King’s letter. This was the point at which
matters stood when Norfolk arrived at Doncaster.
Before the Duke reached the north, Cromwell sent an agent of his own,
Sir Ralph Sadler, to see how the land lay. Sir Ralph’s ostensible
mission was to go to Scotland and to demand from the government the
surrender of the Lincolnshire fugitives[485], but with this he combined
the duty of writing careful reports on the state of the disaffected
districts. On Tuesday 23 January he reached York. He heard many rumours
on the road of fresh risings further north, and found that there were
bills on all the church doors between Doncaster and York, urging the
commons to stick together as the gentlemen had deceived them. All the
country through which he had passed was quiet, but if there were a new
insurrection, the people would take the part of the army which arrived
first, to save their goods.
Sadler talked with many of the “honest householders,” who declared that
Aske had caused the first rising by spreading bills that the parish
churches should be pulled down, and that taxes were to be levied on
marriages, burials, and christenings. They were also positive that the
gentlemen had been willing enough to take part in the rising. “Why,”
quoth Sadler, “the gentlemen were taken by the commons and compelled to
be their captains.” “Yea, yea,” was the reply, “an the gentlemen had
been as they should be they might have stayed them well enough at the
first; but when the gentlemen took their parts, then such poor men as we
be could do no less than do as they did or else have been spoiled of all
that we have.” Sadler was particularly intimate with the hosts of the
various inns at which he stayed. The host of the village inn has always
been an oracle of almost equal authority with the village priest. At
Tadcaster Sadler’s host, a merry fellow, said to him, “Why, how say ye
to my lord Darcy? Did he not turn to the commons as soon as they came to
Pontefract and took their part? And yet being within the castle he might
have resisted them if they had been ten times as many as they
were.”[486] When the King was receiving such reports, it was not very
likely that he would keep his promise to take the first insurrection
“but for a dream.”[487]
Sadler wrote again on 28 January from Newcastle. A day or two before he
set out on his journey, there had been great danger of a new rising in
Cleveland, owing to bills which were scattered abroad to warn the people
that the Duke of Norfolk was coming with a great army “to hang and draw
from Doncaster to Berwick,” so that the north would be “brought in worse
case than the Lincolnshire men.” The rising had been prevented by Robert
Bowes, who was travelling all over the district to quiet the people.
Sadler remarked that as the gentlemen had been able to repress the
present attempt, they could have dealt with the first rebellion just as
easily if they had wished. In spite of the recent disturbance, all the
country through which he had passed was quiet except Darlington, where
he had spent a night and found the people very “tickle.” He alighted at
his inn at about 6 o’clock, and saw not more than three or four people
in the street, but he had scarcely mounted the stairs to his room, when
thirty or forty armed men had gathered round the inn door, “and stood
together in a plompe whispering and rounding together.” Sadler, as
usual, had recourse to the host, “who seemed to be an honest man.” He
said that the townsfolk always assembled when any traveller came from
the south, because they wanted to hear the news. Sadler admonished him
that the town authorities ought not to permit such unlawful assemblies.
The host replied that the heads of the town dared not for their lives
interfere, but that no harm would come of it. “Quoth he, ‘Ye shall see
that I shall cause them to scatter abroad, and every man to go to his
home by and by.’ ‘Mary,’ quoth I, ‘if ye do well, ye should set some of
them by the heels.’ ‘No,’ quoth he, ‘God defend, for so might we bring a
thousand in our tops within an hour; but ye shall see me order them well
enough with fair words.’” Then he went down into the street with his cap
in his hand, and assured them that the new-comer was one of the King’s
servants on an embassy to Scotland. The crowd replied that this could
not be true, because the King of Scotland was in France, which indicates
a very low state of political knowledge. The host, however, persuaded
them that his story was true, and they all with one voice asked when the
Duke of Norfolk was coming and with what company. The host came back to
Sadler to ask his opinion on this subject. Sadler by this time was
converted to the host’s policy of fair words, and replied that Norfolk
would be at Doncaster on Candlemas Eve, with none but his household
servants. This contented the people and they dispersed, but the
occurrence had impressed Sadler: “I assure your lordship the people be
very tickle, and methinks in a marvellous strange case and perplexity;
for they stare and look for things, and fain would have they cannot tell
what.” From Darlington Sadler went to Durham, where he met Bowes, and
thence to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where the mayor and aldermen maintained
very good order; they showed him how strong the town was, and he
remained there waiting for a safe-conduct from Scotland[488].
On his way through Cleveland, Sadler had stayed at Wilton Castle, where
Sir William, brother of Sir John Bulmer, was constable. Soon after
Sadler left, another traveller from London arrived. This was Thomas
Fulthorp, a servant of young Ralph Bulmer, who was bringing a letter
from his master to Sir John. Fulthorp told Sir William that the Duke of
Norfolk “was not in so good favour with the King as the north country
took him to be”; in other words, the Duke’s influence was not sufficient
to make the King observe the appointment at Doncaster. Sir William did
not believe this, because Sadler had told him the contrary[489].
Fulthorp then went on to Lastingham, where Sir John Bulmer was living.
Soon after he reached home, one of Sir John’s servants brought a
terrified letter to Wilton. Ralph, who had gone up to London to discover
the King’s real intentions, sent word that thirty ships were being
prepared to sail against the north, that Aske and Sir George Darcy had
accused several people, including Lord Darcy and Sir Robert Constable,
and that Norfolk was coming with the worst intentions. Sir John begged
his brother to lay a watch along the coasts and to prepare beacons, and
warned him not to leave his house “for no fair letters nor words”[490]
Sir William may have been used to his brother’s panics, for he paid so
little attention to the letter that he did not even trouble to destroy
it[491].
Although Sir John was afraid of fair letters and words, he was also
alarmed because he had not been summoned to meet the Duke of Norfolk. He
wrote to Sir Ralph Evers to inquire the meaning of this, and received a
comforting reply. The Duke meant to send for him; the arrangement at
London was that either Sir John should attend the Duke with ten servants
or his brother Sir William with six[492]. Somewhat relieved, Sir John
agreed that his brother should go[493].
Until he could make up his mind what to do, Sir John had been trying to
keep the commons quiet, but his servants attended their musters, and he
had made quite a collection of their treasonable bills, with the
intention of using them in any way that would serve his own interest.
One of these bills originated at Kendal. It was a semi-rhyming
production, which urged the commons to insist upon having their old
customs and tenant right, “to take your farms by a God’s penny, all
gressoms and heightenings to be laid down.” It expressed the general
idea that the lords and gentlemen had undertaken a pilgrimage to protect
Holy Church, and that the commons would support them if they would grant
the commons’ demands concerning rent and ingressum[494]. It was shown to
Sir John by Priestman, a fugitive from Lincolnshire, who asked him how
he liked it. Sir John replied, “Marry, very well, for when two dogs
fight for a bone the third will take it up; for this will make the
gentlemen and the commons fall forth, and the King shall take up the
matter.” A second bill came from the south and began, “Good Northern
men, stick to your matter, for the lord of Norfolk comes to beguile
you”; it continued with a repetition of Norfolk’s promises, which he had
not performed. A third bill ordered the men of Cleveland to take Sir
William Bulmer and Sir James Strangways, and the men of the Bishopric to
take the Earl of Westmorland, Lord Lumley and Lord Neville, while the
men of Pickering and Blackmoor would seize Sir John Bulmer, and all the
bands would advance to capture the Duke and force him to keep the
promises which he made at Doncaster[495].
This scheme had a particular fascination for Sir John. It had originally
been devised by Sir Francis Bigod. The plan seems to have been that
Richmondshire should rise as soon as Norfolk reached Doncaster. He would
probably hurry forward with no troops but his escort, and might be
attacked by the men of Cleveland as he went up from the plain of York
into the Hambleton Hills about Byland[496]. Two men of Bilsdale came to
Sir John to propose this plot. They brought a list of articles similar
to those which were circulating in Richmond “for the swearing of all
lords and gentlemen or their sons or else to strike off their heads.”
Sir John was to take up his abode at Wilton Castle, when the commons of
Guisborough would capture him by arrangement, and he would then go with
them to seize the Duke. His wife knew of this plot and did not advocate
lenient measures. “She said divers times that if the Duke’s head were
off, Sir Ralph Evers’ and Sir Ralph Ellerker’s men might go where they
would.”[497] Before any steps were taken to put this plot into practice,
Sir William Bulmer visited Lastingham on his way to Doncaster, and
convinced his brother that so long as they remained quiet they had
nothing to fear. Sir John handed over to him his collection of bills, in
order that they might be laid before the Duke. He reversed his tactics,
suppressed the musters of the commons, and for a short time lived in
comparative security[498].
Sir John Bulmer’s is an extreme case of the uneasiness which filled all
the northern gentlemen, as they awaited the Duke of Norfolk. They felt
that, like the knight of the legend, they had blown the horn without
drawing the sword, and they were now unarmed at the mercy of an opponent
whose next move was incalculable.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XVII
Note A. “Naught” in Henry VIII’s reign usually meant “evil,” as it
does here; similarly “naughty” has a much stronger meaning than at the
present day and is equivalent to “wicked,” not to “mischievous.”
Note B. This was not really inconsistent with the fact that Hallam was
to attempt to take Hull before Bigod arrived, for after securing the
town he intended to advance to meet Bigod at Beverley.
Note C. The original of Sir Francis Bigod’s letter to the bailiffs of
Scarborough has disappeared, but it is printed in Speed’s “Great
Britain,” book IX, chapter 21, as follows:
“To the Bailiffs and Commons of the Town of Scarborough.
Wellbeloved, we Francis Bigod, Knight, and John Hallam, Yeoman, in
the name of all the commons, command and charge you that ye assemble
yourselves together immediately upon receipt hereof, and so take
this oath which we here send unto you, and then after in all haste
possible to assist and aid these our brethren whom we send to you to
keep and make sure the Castle, Town and Port of Scarborough, that no
man enter into the same Castle that belongs unto Ralph Evers the
younger, Knight, nor any other which did not take full part with the
commons at our first and last assembling, in whose name, authority
or attorney soever they come, unless they have licence of all the
commons; in like manner ye shall truly keep all such ordnance and
ship[s] to the use of the commons, with which we charged you at our
last being here, and this not to fail, upon pain of your lives. Ye
shall refer credence unto these messengers, thus in haste: Fare you
well.
From Setterington this Monday Saint Maurus’ day[499]. Francis
Bigod Knight, in the name and by commandment of all the commons.”
Note D. This letter is dated 18 January, but endorsed 17 January, and
the latter appears to be the more probable date.
Note E. It was afterwards alleged that Aske had written to Bigod
promising that Hallam should be released, but no trace of this letter
remains[500]. The two letters upon which the prosecution based the
charge are both fully discussed in the text; they were (1) Sir Robert
Constable’s letter for the release of Bigod’s messengers, and (2)
Aske’s lost letter for the delay of Hallam’s execution. The
prosecution, which was not at all scrupulous in its methods, combined
these two letters and asserted that Aske had written either to request
or to promise that Hallam should be released, thus producing a charge
of treason out of two harmless documents.
Note F. Sir Ralph Ellerker reported that Boynton arrived on the
20th[501], but he signed a letter at Beverley on the 19th[502].
Note G. In the summary of the evidence and in Norfolk’s letter it is
said that “Hallam” accused the monks of Watton[503], but this is a
mistake; it was the prisoners who were examined at the same time as
Hallam who accused them. It is perhaps scarcely necessary to say that
the leader of a rebellion is often mentioned loosely as having done
actions for which his followers were really responsible. A well-known
name is attached by rumour to the deeds or words of obscure persons,
and instances have already been given in which Robert Aske was
supposed to have written letters or issued manifestoes with which, in
fact, he had nothing to do. Hallam’s is a similar case.
Note H. The supplication of the abbot and monks of Sawley is printed
among the Letters and Papers of October 1536, but this is evidently
too early, as its real date was either the end of December 1536 or the
beginning of January 1536–7. The reference in it to the fact that the
captain had laid down his office shows that it was written after the
second appointment at Doncaster and that it is, in fact, the same
document which was carried by Shuttleworth to Sir Thomas Percy. The
summary in the Letters and Papers is a good deal more definite than
the vague rambling clauses of the original.