CHAPTER XXI

THE COUNCIL OF THE NORTH

There is documentary evidence that 185 persons were executed in the

north for their share in the risings between October 1536 and March

1537, and that 31 were executed in the south, making a total of 216. In

addition to this there is reason to believe that some executions took

place of which no record remains, and there were a certain number of

prisoners who died in prison without trial. The slaughter at the assault

on Carlisle was considerable, but there is no means of discovering how

many fell there, as the only number mentioned, 700, seems to be much too

great. Making allowance for these omissions, however, the death-roll,

although much longer than historians have acknowledged, is short

considering the standard of the period. It is said that 100,000 peasants

were slaughtered in Germany after the revolt of 1525. In comparison with

this Henry’s modest total of little over 200 looks like humanity itself.

If he won the victory by treachery, he is entitled to the praise of

having used it with moderation, although this mercy was forced upon him

by circumstances and was not much to his taste.

It may be doubted whether this punishment would have been sufficient to

overpower the opposition to Henry’s policy, if the King had not found an

effective ally in the plague. The fatal disease which had raged in the

south during 1536 spread northward in the summer of 1537, and continued

its ravages in the northern counties during the next four or five years.

Men had no time to trouble about the wrongs of the Church with that

terrible spectre at the door. According to the King’s servants it was

the direct work of God on behalf of the King. At any rate it had a great

deal to do with the peaceful close of Henry’s reign.

The north of England at the beginning of the sixteenth century was the

poorest and most backward part of the kingdom, the part, therefore,

which required most attention and care at the hands of a competent

ruler. So far Henry had not done well by it. He found the north poor,

and he robbed it of the only treasure it possessed in the wealth of the

abbeys. He found it backward, and he nearly destroyed the only

civilising influence at work there, the Church. He found that the people

cherished, among many faults, a few rude virtues, truthfulness, personal

honour, fidelity to family and friends. He made no serious effort to

reform their faults, but he did his best to eradicate their virtues. By

his system of justice oaths were made so common that it was impossible

they should be respected. Treacherous and false witnesses were

encouraged. The brother was forced to condemn the brother, and the wife

was tempted to betray her husband. It was impossible that the gentlemen

should preserve the same standard and feel the same self-respect after

they had been half bribed, half frightened into taking part in the

arrest and condemnation of their kinsmen and friends. In short, the

north was impoverished and degraded by Norfolk and the King.

Nevertheless Henry VIII was a statesman, and he had long intended to

reform the north. His experimental councils are one sign of this. His

intrigues against the Percys are another. The Pilgrimage of Grace

afforded a very suitable opportunity to put his ideas into practice. By

its means he at last laid hands on the whole of the Percy inheritance,

and destroyed a power which had menaced the throne for two hundred

years. This dangerous power had been delegated to the Earls of

Northumberland in the hope that it would enable them to control the

Borders, but time had proved the folly of the measure. The Percys could

plunge the kingdom in turmoil whenever they chose, but they could not

maintain any appreciable amount of good government on the Borders. At

length Henry VIII destroyed the family by violence and treachery. The

means were bad, but the end was worth attaining, and the King was firmly

determined that no act of his should confer similar power on another

great family, which his son or grandson would in turn be obliged to

destroy.

Henry had determined to try a new plan of government on the Borders. No

satisfactory way to hold the mosstroopers in check had ever been

devised. The councils were in a perpetual state of reorganisation. The

wardens of the Marches were often in trouble for treason and at other

times pursued spirited blood-feuds among themselves or with the Scots

wardens. It was no wonder that the King took the wardenships into his

own hands and secretly resolved that no nobleman should hold them again.

The East Marches were offered to the Earl of Westmorland, but he was

allowed to refuse the office[1245], which would not have been the case

if the King had really wanted him. Henry intended that the work should

be done by knights and gentlemen appointed as his deputies and dependent

on his own orders. They were to be assisted by the Council of the

Marches. This body, which had been in existence for a long time, was

composed of all the principal Border gentlemen, and the King decided to

grant them pensions in consideration of the services which he hoped they

would perform. The powers of the council were confined to the Borders;

its members were officials such as Sir Thomas Clifford the captain of

Berwick, Lionel Grey porter of Berwick, and Northumbrian gentlemen such

as the Forsters, the Ogles, the Carrs and the Fenwicks. It was now

proposed to include the headmen of the principal surnames of Tynedale

and Reedsdale, the Charltons, Robsons, Dods, Halls and others. The

presidents of the council were the deputy wardens, and its business was

confined to Scots and English raids, outrages in Tynedale and Reedsdale,

the safe-keeping of Border castles, and dealings with the English spies

who infested the Lowlands of Scotland.

This council must not be confused with the Council of the North, as it

was a totally distinct body. It was a makeshift means of dealing with

the problem of the Borders. While England and Scotland were hostile, it

was impossible to rule these districts justly and firmly. The reivers

were not to blame for their situation. There is no real moral

distinction between deliberately laying waste a fair country in time of

war, and carrying off a neighbour’s cattle under cover of night, except

that the first is wanton destruction and the second is sometimes a work

of necessity. The mosstrooper naturally lost all respect for the law

which praised and rewarded the first and hanged him for the second. The

King did his best to deal fairly by the Borders. It was not his fault

that all plans failed; or at least it was his fault only in so far as he

stirred up tumult and encouraged the terrible Warden raids which so

often set the Scots fields ablaze just before harvest time. He had let a

lawless genie out of the pot, which he could by no means conjure back

again.

In January 1536–7 the Earl of Northumberland was dying. He made no

difficulty about the surrender of the wardenships of the East and Middle

Marches into the King’s hands. The younger Percys were soon to be

disposed of in the most definite way possible. There remained the West

Marches, of which the Earl of Cumberland was the warden. On 24 January

the King commanded the Earl to reconcile himself with Lord Dacre.

Shortly afterwards the Privy Council desired the Earl to resign his

office as warden, and announced at the same time that it was the King’s

pleasure to advance him to the Order of the Garter[1246].

The King decided to appoint Sir William Evers to the East and Sir John

Widdrington to the Middle Marches as his deputies, with Roger Fenwick as

Keeper of Tynedale and George Fenwick Keeper of Reedsdale[1247].

It might have been expected that the King would consult the Duke of

Norfolk before making these appointments, as he was just about to start

for the north. But perhaps he wished to show Norfolk that he was not

entirely trusted. At any rate Sir Anthony Browne set out secretly with

the commissions for the new deputy wardens several days before Norfolk,

and the Duke was much surprised to find himself following in the steps

of a royal messenger about whom he knew nothing[1248]. Norfolk’s

authority was limited also in another way. From the first it had been

determined that he should be accompanied by a council of “personages of

honour, worship and learning,” appointed by the Privy Council[1249].

Their commission set forth the powers of the council “whose advice the

Duke shall in all things use, and for whose entertainment he shall have

allowance, as in a book, wherein the Duke and every councillor is rated

at a certain ordinary, is contained.” Some of these councillors

accompanied the Duke to the north, the rest were gentlemen already

resident there[1250]. On 14 January “the Earl of Westmorland and Bowes

were sworn of the King’s Council in the North.”[1251] Sir Marmaduke

Constable was vice-president, and William Babthorpe was a

councillor[1252].

The Council of the North was thus constituted in 1537, but as yet it had

no independent authority. The members did not even sign Norfolk’s

despatches, and the Duke quoted their advice only when he was suggesting

measures which would be disagreeable to the King[1253].

When Norfolk was at Doncaster on 2 February he received from the Privy

Council an explanation of Browne’s errand. Besides the appointment of

the new deputies[1254], he carried letters patent to all the headmen of

Tynedale and Reedsdale granting them fees as the King’s servants[1255].

At first Norfolk was not opposed to the general outlines of the plan,

but he strongly objected to some of the King’s pensioners. Edward and

Cuthbert Charleton, Henry and Geoffrey Robson, Christopher and David

Milburn, John Hall of Otterburn, and Sandy and Anthony Hall were all

either thieves themselves or maintainers of thieves[1256]. They had been

involved in the murder of two gentlemen. “Light persons will say that

the King is obliged to hire the worst malefactors and overlook their

offences.” Norfolk ventured to send after Sir Anthony Browne the advice

that he should not deliver the patents to these men without further

orders[1257].

The Duke was snubbed by the Privy Council for his pains. “The King

marvelled he should be more earnest against retaining such as have been

murderers and thieves than such as have been traitors. These men rather

did good in the late trouble, though they did it for their own lucre,

and if they can be now made good men the King’s money will be well

spent.” To grant them fees was not the same thing as to grant them

pardons; if they were murderers they could still be punished for that.

Norfolk must write at once to Sir Anthony and tell him to carry out his

original orders without modification[1258]. Henry always believed that

the mosstroopers might be turned to good use if he could but manage

them. On the approach of war with Scotland they became a valuable asset.

Sir Anthony Browne arrived at Berwick on Saturday 3 February. Besides

the delivery of their commissions to the deputy-wardens, he was

instructed to arrange a general pacification, to demand restitution from

Tynedale and Reedsdale for the raids they had made in Northumberland

during the rising, to appoint certain persons to advise the deputies,

and to put Ford Castle into safe-keeping. In addition to these tasks,

some of them not easy, he had still more delicate work to do. He must

warn the Borderers against all breaches of the peace with Scotland; he

must inform Sir Thomas Clifford that the Earl of Cumberland had been

reconciled to Lord Dacre, and he must order Sir Thomas to “cast away his

ancient grudges”; he must persuade the Northumbrian gentlemen “to live

more in the heart of the Marches than they do now”; finally he was not

to leave the north until the two younger Percys were safely in London by

dint of force or strategy, and with them their henchman little John

Heron of Chipchase[1259].

Sir Anthony Browne sent for the gentlemen of Northumberland to meet him

at Berwick on Tuesday 6 February. There were some who failed to answer

his summons—Cuthbert and Edward Charleton, Henry Robson, Christopher and

David Milburn, and Sandy Hall—all names on Norfolk’s black list. The

Bishop of Durham, who was making himself very useful, explained that

they were noted freebooters who would not come in “for fear of their

evil deeds;”[1260] the deputy wardens confirmed this opinion[1261]. The

absentees would have received a pleasant surprise if they had plucked up

heart to come; against all likelihood it was gold, not halters, that the

King had sent them.

All the gentlemen who assembled at Berwick took the new oath to the King

and received their patents. They took “not a little comfort” in being

the King’s servants, and would “think long” until they had earned their

pensions by some deed. The Greys were at feud with the Carrs, the

Forsters and Ogles with the Halls; indeed it is safe to say that there

was not a family in Northumberland without a blood enemy and a sworn

ally. Sir Anthony Browne commanded them in the King’s name to forget

their hatreds, and in the fullness of their new-found loyalty they all

replied that the King should be obeyed in everything, “and each agreed

to set his hand to an instrument.”

They were heartily agreed on one point. Tynedale and Reedsdale had

spoiled the plains “so sore that many are weary of their lives”; the

reivers must be forced to make restitution, or if that was impossible at

least some revenge must be taken. Sir Anthony Browne promised redress

and sent to the hill graynes to demand pledges for their good

behaviour[1262]. Reedsdale made no difficulty, but sent in seven or

eight of these hostages at once. There was likely to be more trouble

over the Tynedale pledges, and the dalesmen had an excuse for their

lawlessness ready. They said that they would never have “broken” if Sir

Reynold Carnaby had not called upon them in the King’s name to rise

against the rebels of Northumberland. Of course everyone in

Northumberland swore that he had no thoughts against the King and took

up arms only to protect his goods from the reivers[1263]. It is

difficult to discover who was responsible for the raising of the two

dales, the Percy or the Carnaby faction. The Carnabys laid the mustering

of Tynedale to the charge of little John Heron, Sir Thomas Percy’s man,

and supported their story by many circumstantial details[1264]. This

still leaves Reedsdale unaccounted for, and the mosstroopers themselves

said that they rose for Sir Reynold. In the King’s opinion, though they

acted for their own gain, they did more good than harm. He must have

meant by spoiling their neighbours, for they did nothing else. It may

have been that when John Heron raised Tynedale, the Carnabys raised

Reedsdale against him, and that both dales thought it more profitable to

spoil the lowlands than to fight each other. It was in nobody’s interest

to defend the falling house of Percy, and it may be suspected that a

list of spoils nearly as long as those attributed to the Percys might

have been made against the Carnaby faction.

The members of the Council of the Marches assembled at Berwick. They

were Sir Thomas Clifford, Sir William Evers, Sir John Widdrington,

Robert Collingwood, Lionel Grey, Cuthbert Radcliff and John Horsley. On

14 February they wrote to the King to inform him that it had been

necessary to modify some of the orders brought by Sir Anthony Browne.

First they had requested him not to deliver the King’s letters patent

which granted the keeping of Reedsdale to George Fenwick, because a

change at such an unsettled time would be sure to cause disorder, and

the deputy warden of the Middle Marches, Sir John Widdrington, felt

himself hampered in his duties if Reedsdale were not under his direct

control.

Further, after much debate, they had determined to advise the King

humbly against enlisting as pensioners in his service Cuthbert and

Edward Charleton. These two men were leaders of the Tynedale thieves.

They had resorted to Sir Thomas Percy during the insurrection. They had

busily devoted themselves to stirring up the disorder so favourable to

the practice of their calling. The feeling was general that in asking

these reivers to assist their natural enemies the wardens, the King was

obeying too implicitly the old saw about catching thieves. Moreover, the

Charletons had not been loyal since the end of the rising. The greater

number of the dalesmen had been ready to take the King’s oath, but the

Charletons had refused to swear to be true to the King, unless they

might make a special reservation in favour of Hexham Priory, which they

had sworn to maintain against all the world, receiving 20 nobles a year

from the canons in guerdon of their allegiance. This is some proof that

the marchman’s respect for his oath was more than a chivalrous fiction

of the Border minstrels.

The Charletons would not agree to send in pledges for restitution of the

cattle and gear they had plundered. They had plenty of friends on the

Marches, and being in league with the reivers of Liddesdale, Jedworth

Forest, Harlaw Woods and Esk Water, they could defy the King’s officers

with impunity. The Council of the Marches suggested that it would be

better to catch and hang them than to enrich them with the nation’s

gold. They were so formidable that it would take a force of 300 men to

penetrate Tynedale and run them to earth.

Finally the King had commanded that John Heron of Chipchase should be

arrested and sent up to London by water; but the Council of the Marches

thought that his arrest would alarm the Reedsdale men, who were so far

fairly quiet, and found it expedient merely to bind him over for 200

marks to appear before the King when summoned[1265].

Some of these arrangements did not please Henry. From a fragment of a

despatch to the Council of the Marches, it appears that he marvelled at

the demand for 300 soldiers, considering that Northumberland was quiet;

he expected the Council to arrest and send up the Charletons without any

such aid. He saw no reason against employing the Charletons in Norfolk’s

objection that they were murderers, but it was a very different matter

if they had refused to take his oath. The draft breaks off, and it is

impossible to say what further orders were in the completed

letter[1266].

On Monday 26 February the Duke of Norfolk dissolved Hexham Priory. All

passed quietly. Edward and Cuthbert Charleton were safe in the

fastnesses of North Tynedale, and did not consider that their oath bound

them to attack the King’s Lieutenant when he had superior forces[1267].

On Tuesday 27 February Sir Anthony Browne received the last of the

Reedsdale pledges, and the Tynedale men agreed to send in theirs on

Monday 5 March. Well pleased at seeing the end of this difficult task,

Sir Anthony left Berwick for Newcastle-upon-Tyne[1268]. At Morpeth he

was met by 300 of the King’s subjects who had been “sore harried and

spoiled” and begged for redress against the mosstroopers. Browne replied

to their petition that he had taken order for the restitution of their

lost goods, “whereat they are right joyous and glad.” Browne wrote that

all went well, and that he expected to be at court again in a

fortnight[1269]. If he had had more experience of the Borders, this very

look of peace would have made him uneasy.

On Saturday 3 March Sir Anthony Browne was complacently sure that no

part of the realm was in better stay than the Middle Marches. That very

day Roger Fenwick, the Keeper of Tynedale, went to Bellingham to receive

the pledges of his dale. At midnight he was set upon and murdered “for

old grudges, by three naughty persons”; the murderers were John of

Charleton, Rynny Charleton and John Dod[1270].

Norfolk was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne at the time. Feeling his position

strengthened by the early failure of the King’s new policy, he drew up,

with the assistance of his council, an alternative scheme for the

government of the north. Henry was determined to be served no more on

the Marches by noblemen, who were as lawless as the reivers and might

use their isolation to become too powerful. Norfolk, on the other hand,

was convinced that only a nobleman, wielding such powers as any king

might fear to entrust to a subject, could keep order on the

Marches[1271]. According to Norfolk’s scheme, this nobleman ought to be

a member of the King’s Privy Council. He should be the King’s

Lieutenant, president of the proposed Council of the North, and the

ultimate authority in Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham

and Yorkshire. He was to have power to levy forces whenever he saw need.

He must be chief warden of all the Marches, with deputies under him. He

was to spend most of the year in the north and to sit two or three times

at Newcastle-upon-Tyne to administer justice in Northumberland, in such

cases as murders, felonies and debts, as the wardens had no authority to

judge between Englishman and Englishman except in cases of March

treason[1272], but only between Englishman and Scot.

In this proposal Norfolk showed his hand. During the following months

there was a continuous subterranean struggle between the opposite

schemes of Henry and Norfolk for the government of the north. Although

little is to be found as yet about the Council of the North, there can

be no doubt that that was the form of government which Henry had in his

mind from the first. Against it Norfolk set up his scheme of a northern

dictator, with himself holding the dictatorship. It was a tempting but a

dangerous dream, and Norfolk dared not allow it to appear except by

hints and glimpses such as this.

To strengthen the hands of the dictator of the north the Duke and his

council made a number of suggestions less open to criticism than the

main proposal:

(1) Reedsdale belonged to Lord Tailboys, but it “is wholly inhabited by

thieves and has always been used as a lord marcher’s liberty and is not

geldable.” Harbottle Castle, where the Keeper of Reedsdale ought to

dwell, was so ruinous that it was fit neither for a dwelling-place nor a

prison. The King ought either to compel Tailboys to repair Harbottle, or

take the whole valley into his own hands, giving Tailboys compensation.

(2) Some fortress ought to be built in Tynedale, or else Simonburn

Castle, belonging to Heron of Ford, must be put into repair and made

over to the Keeper of Tynedale.

(3) “Some true and hardy gentleman” was needed as Keeper of Tynedale,

which was to include Hexhamshire, Corbridge and the Barony of Langley.

All the gentlemen of the South Tyne valley should be ordered to rise at

his word in case of raiding or Scots invasions.

(4) The Earl of Northumberland’s castles and lands should be taken into

the King’s hands, and the tenants instead of paying ingressum and such

charges should be commanded to be ready with horse and harness at short

notice.

(5) Lord Dacre must be ordered to keep his tenants, the prickers of

Gillsland, in good rule, and they must be ready to attend the King’s

officers at the Border meetings.

(6) The pensions granted to the gentlemen and headmen of Northumberland,

designed to encourage them in the King’s service, were not likely to

have that effect. The money would be better spent in rewarding good

service already done, or in making the castles defensible.

(7) Finally the laws of the Marches ought to be fixed and written down,

as at present they worked with all the uncertainty of traditional

custom.

These suggestions, headed “A remembrance for order and good rule to be

had and kept in the north parts,” were sent up to London[1273]. In his

letter to the Privy Council dated 7 March Norfolk again urged that a

nobleman should be appointed warden, at least of the West Marches.

“Every man of wit” about him was agreed that no “mean person” could curb

the Marches. This was the moral he drew from the murder of Roger

Fenwick[1274].

The Privy Council answered this letter on 12 March. They pointed out

that the King had offered the wardenship of the East and Middle Marches

to two noblemen, who had both been reluctant to accept the office;

instead of reluctant servants he had taken the best men who would serve

him willingly. Norfolk had expressed approval of the scheme at first,

only objecting to a few of the pensioners, whose unfitness the Privy

Council now acknowledged. The King had been badly served on the West

Marches because of the Clifford feud; it would become still more bitter

if he appointed Lord Dacre to an office which the Earl of Cumberland had

just given up. Was not the King’s authority enough to make the meanest

man respected? “The King retaining all the gentlemen and headmen as he

doth shall not be ill served; at least it shall not be ill to assay it.”

They asked for the names of the “wise men” who had advised with

Norfolk[1275].

The Privy Council remained blandly unconscious of Norfolk’s very broad

hint that there was one nobleman who would not refuse to be warden of

all the Marches. Their reply also shows why Norfolk resented so much the

pensions which the King had granted. The recipients received the money

direct from the King; a special messenger had brought them their

patents, and it was made very plain that the Duke had nothing to do with

the gift. This struck a blow at Norfolk’s power of buying adherents by a

promise of court patronage, and when all the gentlemen and headmen were

the King’s servants, it became much more difficult for anyone else to

gather a strong band of retainers and allies.

When Norfolk’s proposal was laid before the King, he replied in no

uncertain terms. On 17 March the Privy Council report to Norfolk the

following speech which the King himself had deigned to make. Henry

marvelled that Norfolk seemed so resolved that only noblemen should

serve him on the Marches:

“When I would,” quoth his Highness, “have preferred to the wardenry of

the East and Middle Marches my lord of Westmorland, like as he did

utterly refuse it, so my lord of Norfolk noted him a man of such heat

and hastiness of nature that he could not think him meet for it. When we

would,” quoth his Grace, “have conferred it to my lord of Rutland, he

refused it also; and my lord of Norfolk noted him a man of too much

pusillanimity to have done us good service in it, if he would have

embraced an overture in it. And we think,” quoth his Highness, “he would

not advise us to continue in it my lord of Northumberland. Now if we

shall prefer none of these three to that room, we would be glad,” quoth

his Grace, “that my lord of Norfolk shall name a nobleman that he

thinketh meet for that office. For gladly we would have such a one in

store to appoint it unto, if we should hereafter alter our device, which

we be not yet determined to do, nor shall apply to that sentence, till

we have better experiment what should enforce us unto.”[1276]

Norfolk could not, of course, name the “nobleman that he thinketh meet

for that office.” He had indicated the identity of that desirable

personage as plainly as possible. The King’s snub revealed to him his

mistake, and he remained silent for a considerable time, deep in his

multifarious duties in the north[1277].

On 11 March Norfolk was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, making the final

arrangements, as he thought, for bringing in the Border pledges[1278].

Sir Anthony Browne, who was about to ride south, thought that there

would be little more trouble with Tynedale as certain men “of good

estimation” had undertaken to send pledges for all the inhabitants

except the murderers[1279]. Norfolk intended to return in Easter week to

see that his orders had been executed and to “hear many poor men’s

causes.”[1280]

All that is known of the terms of Norfolk’s treaty with the men of

Tynedale may be gathered from the following letter, apparently addressed

to the Council of the Marches by the heads of the four graynes[1281]:

“Worshipful master, this is our answers being the heads men of

Tynedale, it is so that we were called before the Duke of Norfolk’s

grace for such misorder as we have done in the late rebellion within

our sovereign lord’s realm, and there was commanded to make

restitution of the third part of all such goods as we had by our

oaths, and to find our felons given forth by the commissioners, and

that [_what_] we have not done we shall do. Also the said

commissioners hath given forth another decree, the which we may not

bide marvelling what is the cause thereof. This bill made the xvii day

of March. Also all conditions made before the Duke of Norfolk we will

fulfil and do to the uttermost. Also if they be any that be obstacle

to do the same, we bind us by this our writing to had [_hold_] him and

forcify him. By us—

Thomas Charlton

Gylbert Charlton

Gerret Charlton of Wark

Gerre Charlton of the Boure.

Umfray Mylborn

Rynyone Charlton

Henry Yarro

John Wilkinson

John Robson of the Pawston

Jaffray Robson

Arche Robson.

Henry Dode

Arche Dode”[1282]

There was no trouble, at present, between England and Scotland. The

deputy wardens, who had nothing to do with internal justice, could send

in satisfactory reports. The East Marches were quiet. On the Middle

Marches Sir John Widdrington and the Scots officers arranged for redress

between Liddesdale, Tynedale and Reedsdale according to the agreement

made at the last Border meeting. The King of Scots had sent special

orders that this should be observed on his side. Nevertheless there was

a general feeling that war would follow on James’ return from

France[1283].

At Easter Norfolk returned to Northumberland, as he had intended. He

made a tour of inspection round the Border castles and held a meeting

with the Scots warden of the Middle Marches. Norfolk was convinced by

his demeanour that there was no immediate intention of war[1284].

The Duke was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 5 April, where he was met by Sir

John Widdrington, Sir William Evers, the Council of the Marches and most

of the gentlemen. He was much displeased with the state of affairs.

Tynedale and Reedsdale had made no restitution, and were not likely to

do so unless they could be constrained by more effectual means than

keeping their kinsmen in prison[1285]. Neither dale would begin to make

restitution before the other. In spite of their thievings the borderers

were miserably poor, and in some cases they were in fact unable to

restore even a part of what they had stolen, for the cattle often went

to supply a pressing lack of meat.

Some of the Reedsdale men had just raided Tynedale and harried one of

the Milburns. This was no doubt a surprise expedition, for Tynedale

could muster more spears than Reedsdale. The inhabitants of the two

valleys might fairly be said to eke out a precarious existence by

driving away each other’s cattle. A servant of the Carnabys had been

attacked. The mosstroopers scorned the garrison left to protect him and

burned his house to the ground. Sir John Widdrington had nowhere to

bestow the nine Reedsdale pledges except in the decayed tower of

Harbottle where “they cannot be kept strong, ne yet hath any victual for

them.”

Sir William Evers had held two meetings with the Scots on the East

Marches, but no meeting had been held by the deputies of either the

Middle or the West Marches. If nothing more than this were done, Norfolk

thought the disorders would increase. He reported the unsatisfactory

state of affairs to the King on 7 April[1286]. He did not mention his

earlier scheme in the letter, but he sent a verbal message that only a

nobleman, armed with sufficient powers, could hope to keep order; as for

the name of anyone fit for the post, “the King knows his nobles.”[1287]

Perhaps Norfolk was a little afraid of the effect which his sullen

message might produce, for on 12 April he wrote a hedging letter to

Cromwell. He thought that the Earl of Rutland would be the best warden

of the East and Middle Marches. Rutland was allied to all the gentlemen

of Northumberland, and also to the Earl of Westmorland. He was a man who

would listen to counsel, and as war was threatened “it is perilous for a

hasty, heady man to have the rule of such people, for the Scots can

train men to ambushments as well as any man living.” This remark was

aimed at Westmorland; but nevertheless the Duke considered him the best

man for the wardenship, failing Rutland.

Norfolk had inquired of both my lord and my lady of Westmorland why the

Earl had refused the office, and found that it was for the following

reasons,—that the Earl’s servants had refused to serve the King during

the Pilgrimage, and he was busy dismissing them by degrees; the Earl was

not assured of the friendship of Robert Bowes, whose influence was so

great among Westmorland’s kinsmen and allies that he feared it would

outweigh his own; during the rebellion the Earl had defended Sir Reynold

Carnaby, and thereby attracted to himself some of the hatred felt on all

hands for Northumberland’s favourite. Norfolk thought that these reasons

were good. As to Bowes he “is not only very much esteemed but is a wise,

hardy man and dare well enterprise a great matter.” The King could not

do better than attach him to his service by a valuable grant. “Though I

dare not speak assuredly of a man so lately reconciled, yet if he may be

assured he may be very useful.”

On the West Marches Norfolk put no faith in Sir Thomas Wharton, who was

suggested for the post of deputy warden. No one could do such good

service as Lord Dacre, but as he had been heavily fined so lately it

would not look well to restore his office; people would say that the

King was simply making everything he could out of him. The Earl of

Cumberland was the only suitable person left; “but he must be brought to

change his conditions and not be so greedy to get money of his tenants.”

Norfolk declared that this was his final opinion, and begged the King to

keep it secret[1288]. Needless to say, the King did not change his

plans, nor was he deceived as to Norfolk’s real ambition.

About this time, the middle of April 1537, the rumours of an approaching

war with Scotland became alarming. In order to understand their origin,

it is necessary to trace the relations of England, France and Scotland

during the last five months.

James V, King of Scotland, was at Tournelles near Paris in December

1536, preparing for his wedding with Francis I’s daughter

Madeleine[1289]. The French were pleased with his gentleness and Faenza,

the Papal Nuncio, with his devotion to the Holy See[1290]. To the

English ambassadors he was cold and distant, and Wallop described him,

not without malice, as a countrified youth. “His manner of using himself

by that we do perceive is after the northern fashion, as the lords of

those parts doth use themselves when they come first to court, now

looking over one shoulder, now over the other, with a beck to one and a

beck to another, and unto us nothing. He is a right proper man after the

northern fashion. His being here shall do him much good, and to us

little profit; for here he shall learn many things.”[1291] It seems to

have been the fashion at the English court to talk of the Scots as if

they were barbarians, but James probably had his own reasons for seeming

shy to the English ambassadors.

He spent much of his time practising for the jousts which were to be

held at his wedding[1292]. Francis showed him every courtesy and when he

entered Paris in state on 31 December 1536 the Court of Parliament went

before him clad in red cloaks, an honour not usually accorded to any but

the King of France[1293]. The marriage took place on New Year’s Day,

with great magnificence, and a proper display of sumptuous apparel,

cloth of gold, and precious stones. After the wedding was a banquet, and

after the banquet a mask and dancing. Next day there was jousting at

Tournelles. The King of Scots was a true sportsman, and appeared at his

wedding with a wound caused by “a great stroke with a spear upon the

left side of his head ... being a sore blemish in his face all this

triumphing time.”[1294]

On 19 January 1536–7 Faenza wrote that there was good hope of English

affairs going well. The people stood firmly to their demands. The King

had received ambassadors from them graciously, which showed that he must

be aware of his own weakness. No doubt some report of Aske’s reception

at court had reached France. The Nuncio suggested that Pole should be

sent to England and that the Censures should be published at once[1295],

but as soon as he received definite orders to publish them he hung

back[1296]. This made little difference, however, as the time when they

would have been useful had passed.

James V desired to return home through England, but he felt some

difficulty about requesting Henry’s hospitality. The King of England had

always opposed the French marriage, and James, to avoid his

remonstrances, had not consulted him on the subject. Henry professed

himself grieved and offended by this neglect[1297]. Nevertheless James

did not wish to take the long voyage home with his young bride in the

stormy season of the year, and as he was anxious to return to Scotland,

he ventured to make his request through the French ambassador in

England.

Henry was by no means inclined to do his nephew a favour. He considered

it very strange that the King of Scots should not make the request in

his own name. On 4 February the Privy Council asked Norfolk’s advice on

the subject[1298]. The Duke’s position was a delicate one. James was

possibly the future King of England. His friendship would in any case be

very valuable to the dictator of the north. In spite of Henry’s obvious

wishes Norfolk ventured to consult his own future interests, and replied

that it would do no harm for James to pass through England, except on

the score of expense. It was probably Scots pride which prevented him

from writing to the King himself, and the peace and riches of England

could cause nothing but wholesome humiliation to one with “a very

enemy’s heart in his body.”[1299] But Henry determined to show his

nephew no courtesy. “The King’s honour is not to receive the King of

Scots into his realm unless he will come as his Grace’s vassal. For

there came never King of Scots into England in peaceable manner but

after that sort.” Henry enumerated all his grievances against James, and

concluded with the argument that the country must appear peaceful and

loyal to an enemy who was passing through it, and to secure this

appearance it might be necessary to make concessions to the disaffected

which would afterwards cause trouble. James’ overtures met with no

response, and he was obliged to face the sea voyage[1300].

This affair did not improve the relations between the two countries.

James became more gracious than ever to the Papal Nuncio at Paris. He

was ready to further the Pope’s plan of reconciling Francis and Charles,

and he cherished the splendid dream of all young kings, that he would go

in person to fight against the infidels. The Scots disliked Henry’s

policy and his person. They saw that his growing despotism was a menace

to Scotland. David Beaton, the Abbot of Arbroath and Keeper of the Privy

Seal, was willing, if the Pope desired it, to send the Censures secretly

into England and cause them to be published suddenly when Henry VIII was

in the north[1301]. It is impossible to say what the effect of this bold

scheme would have been, but the Papal court had not sufficient energy to

take it up, and Henry did not travel north after all at this time.

The Pope sent James V a consecrated cap and sword, as a special token of

his favour, together with an exhortation against heresy[1302]. The King

of Scots was pleased and stirred by the symbol. “With as many words as

he can say in French, [he] again thanks his Holiness for the sword. I

know it has touched his heart and tomorrow morning the ceremony [of

presentation] shall be,” wrote the Papal Nuncio on 18 February[1303].

On 8 March the King and Queen of Scots took leave of Francis at

Compiègne and went to Rouen, whence they were to sail[1304]. They waited

there for nearly two months before they embarked. The young Queen was

consumptive and could not well bear the voyage, which was therefore

delayed until a more favourable time of year. James distrusted Henry’s

intentions. The English ships held command of the sea and before now a

King of Scotland had been captured on his voyage and carried prisoner to

London. Rumour said that there were ten armed English ships on the coast

and ten more in Flanders, and though James had fourteen ships of his own

and eight lent for the voyage by Francis, he feared that Henry might

begin hostilities by an attack on his fleet.

Henry, however, was not on such good terms with the Emperor as Francis

imagined, and was not disposed for war. Though relations were strained

between France and England, neither was prepared to fight[1305]. The war

with the Emperor kept Francis busy, and Henry needed time to recover

after the late crisis in England. James had no intention of attacking

England without his father-in-law’s support. Nevertheless the news that

he was bringing home his French bride raised a general expectation of

war with Scotland.

At a friend’s house in West Malling, Kent, James Fredewell a priest, was

playing at tables with Adam Lewes, the schoolmaster, one day in April

1537. The priest asked a man who was going to London to buy him a book.

Lewes asked if he would buy the New Testament, but Fredewell replied he

wished all the Testaments in English were burnt.

“What! will ye burn the Gospel of Christ and the word of God?” said the

schoolmaster.

“Tush!” quoth the priest, “I will buy me a portresse to say my service

on, as I was wont to do.”

They finished their game and went to John Doomright’s shop, where a pile

of Acts of Parliament lay, concerning artillery, dress and unlawful

games. Lewes remarked that he hoped they would be better enforced when

the King had finished with the work in hand.

“Yea,” said Fredewell, “the King is like to have more to do yet.”

“Why so?” said the shop-keeper, “his Grace hath overcome his enemies of

the north, for they hang at their own doors.”

“What then?” returned the priest, “there is another bird abreeding that

came not forth yet which will come forth before midsummer, that the King

had never such since he was King of England.”

Being asked what he meant, he told them that the Emperor had given the

King Flanders, but if Henry took the Emperor’s part, both the King of

France and the King of Scots would be on his neck, and Francis had made

James Admiral of the sea. The schoolmaster declared that they could do

little hurt; but if the King made war beyond the sea he would do well to

cut off the priests’ heads first or they would betray him. Fredewell

retorted that that was easier said than done. Lewes went away and

another priest called Cuthbert came into the shop. He picked up an

English Testament and said he was an evil man who translated it, or the

Emperor would not have burnt him. The shop-keeper asked if no good men

were ever put to death by the Bishop of Rome. “Yes,” said Fredewell,

“there were some put to death within this two year that was as good

livers and as faithful as be now alive.” Cuthbert said that the Bishop

of Rome never put good men to death, and the two priests left the shop

discussing whether it were lawful for priests to marry[1306]. Fredewell

probably meant the Pilgrims when he spoke of the faithful who were put

to death.

At Whitsuntide a citizen of Leicester, who had been making a circuit of

pilgrimages in the north of England and Scotland, reported the rumours

which he had heard by the way. In Edinburgh it was said that King James

would make war on England for “the Seven Sheriffdoms” unless the King of

England would give them to him freely, and that James had proclaimed

himself Duke of York and Prince of Wales. There were said to be 15,000

Englishmen in Scotland, fugitives who had fled from Norfolk. Two of them

were pointed out to the pilgrim in Edinburgh; one was a gentleman

wearing a black velvet coat, and yet it was said that he had been but a

poor man in England. The other, a priest, was now a canon in a house of

religion near Holyrood. These Englishmen had promised to be in the van

of an invasion of England, and to raise all Northumberland[1307].

Scots rhymes, prophecies and ballads aimed against Henry spread into

England from time to time. An instance of this came to light at Royston,

Hertford. The story is painful and rather perplexing. Robert Dalyvell of

Royston went to Scotland “to learn the cunning in the craft of a

saddler” about April 1535. He lived in Edinburgh with a saddler for

about eight weeks and heard many Scots, both light persons and men of

reputation, say that their king should be crowned King of England in

London before midsummer three years later, i.e. 1538. They had read this

in books of prophecy. Dalyvell returned to England and wandered about

the north, working for a few weeks at York, Gateshead and

Chester-le-Street; at the last place he heard several Scots say that

their king was worthy to be king of England, and next in blood. He told

them they were false traitors and their master rebuked them. Dalyvell

went back to Edinburgh and “the Scots that railed before read the

prophecies of Merlin in his hearing.” He returned home to Royston in

1537 and “on Tuesday night after Palm Sunday at midnight, his wife being

asleep” an angel appeared to him, saying, “Arise, and show your prince

that the Scots would never be true to him.” The next night he had the

same vision, but he did not obey it.

On 11 June 1537 Dalyvell told a serving-man in the stable of the

Greyhound, Royston, some of the prophecies which he had heard from the

Scots, that if the King did not amend he should not live a month after

the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist 1538, and that before

that day a horse worth 10_s._ “shall be able to bear all the noble blood

of England.”[1308] Whether the serving-man reported the matter, or

whether Dalyvell himself confessed in a panic does not appear, but he

was examined by seven magistrates and admitted the words[1309]. He was

sent to London and made a fuller statement next day. It is difficult to

see why so much importance was attached to the story of a poor man who

seems to have been half-witted. Perhaps Cromwell hoped to get hold of

some Scots spies by his means; and he endeavoured to make Dalyvell

accuse priests. Though he was racked and cross-examined the prisoner had

only one story to tell, and declared that of all the religious men he

had known not one had spoken of prophecies even in confession[1310].

That Henry himself was anxious about James’ intentions is shown by the

matters treated in the Privy Council on 3 April 1537. It was decided

that Calais, Carlisle, and Berwick must be victualled and prepared for

defence. The English navy must be in readiness for immediate service.

The commission of the peace must be purged of all but “men of worship

and wisdom meet for the same”; and letters must be sent to all justices

to keep special watch for seditious persons; as a further precaution

certain of the nobles would be ordered to live in their own counties for

a time.

The Pope was trying to reconcile the Emperor and Francis in order that

all three might attack England; the King must contrive to have one

friend at least, and as alliances were generally concluded by a

marriage, the King’s two daughters, though illegitimate, must have such

provision made for them that their hands would be accepted by foreign

princes. The Queen was pregnant, but still it was expedient that one of

the King’s daughters should be declared legitimate “to take away the

remainder hanging upon the King of Scots,” who might be tempted by the

French to bring forward his claim[1311].

Meanwhile the Border was alive with rumours of war. No one had yet been

appointed deputy warden of the West Marches, but Sir John Lowther, the

Earl of Cumberland’s deputy captain at Carlisle, was doing the work.

Hearing a rumour on Easter Eve [31 March 1537] that the Scots were

mustering, Lowther sent Edward Story the warden-serjeant with a letter

to Lord Maxwell the Scots warden, in order that Story might pick up news

by the way. Story talked for a long time with Maxwell, who told him that

general musters had been proclaimed in every borough town in Scotland.

Each man was expected to appear with “a jack of plate, a steel bonnet

and splints, and a spear six ells long, and all who can, a horse.” The

King of Scots was expected at any time; he was waiting for a fair wind

and he hoped “to escape the ships of the sea.” Maxwell declared that if

the King had been at home during the rebellion he would “have kept his

house in Carlisle before this.”

Lowther forwarded this news to the Earl of Cumberland on 6 April, and

reminded him that Maxwell’s boast might well be true, for neither the

city nor the castle was strong, and he lacked ordnance, powder and

gunners[1312]. The Earl received the letter at Skipton, and sent on the

warning to the King. He thought that a Scots general would attack either

Berwick or Carlisle, and he dwelt upon the weakness of the latter[1313].

In February Henry had sent a request to the Regents of Scotland by Ralph

Sadler that rebels flying from the Duke of Norfolk’s justice might be

carefully returned to England. He received a flowery answer from the

Scots Council, promising all that he asked[1314]; but though the Scots

wardens were charged not to harbour English fugitives[1315], they were

not expected to take their orders seriously, and such of the Pilgrims as

escaped across the Border were safe.

On 7 April Norfolk at Newcastle-upon-Tyne wrote to inform the Regents

that John Charleton, Rinian Charleton and John Dod, the slayers of Roger

Fenwick, were being sheltered at Jedburgh Abbey. He demanded that they

should be arrested and delivered to the English wardens[1316]. Henry

Ray, Berwick Pursuivant, a very important personage on the Borders,

carried the letter. He was given no credence, but he was instructed to

enlarge upon the peace, contentment, prosperity and riches of England to

the Regents and all other Scots. On his way he was to find out all he

could as to whether the people wished for war, how the new taxes were

taken, and why some of the lords had gone with a large company into

Fife.

On 9 April Berwick Pursuivant arrived at Edinburgh and dined with the

Bishop of Aberdeen, who was Treasurer of Scotland. The Bishop made

enquiries about the insurrection in England. Ray replied that the realm

was never in better order than it was at present. The Treasurer said,

“That is very well, but ye have put down many good Christian men.” Ray

admitted that they were Christian men, but if they had been good men

they would not have been put down,—“I trow, my lord, we are as good

Christian men as any in the world.” The Treasurer replied, “Ye that are

poor men are good, but the heads are worst; for if ye English men be so

good, then is France, Italy and many other countries clearly deceived.”

Adam Otterburn, a member of the Scots Council who was dining with them,

asked what ships were set on the sea. Ray answered that he knew of none.

He gave them the English news according to his instructions. The

Treasurer said that he was very glad to hear of so much peace and

rejoicing, and that he would pray for the King of England and all the

realm, “that ye may be good men.” Ray retorted, “Ye can not, my lord, so

soon begin your prayer, but it is had, for we are good already.” He

asked why the Scots Borderers were so sure that there would be war when

their King came home. The Treasurer merely said that it would not be

Scotland’s fault if there were a war.

This humourous hostility, half hidden by a jest, was one sign of the

national feeling which watched Henry’s despotism with such jealousy. On

his return Ray reported that the commons of Scotland were greatly roused

against England, because they believed that English ships had been sent

to take their King on his homeward voyage, and that Henry and the

Emperor were in league to attack France. If that happened, they said,

they would take the French King’s part. They called the English

heretics, and were more inclined to war than peace. The new money was

paid already, without any rebellion. Lord Maxwell was the only lord who

had gone beyond Fife, but for what purpose Ray could not find out. When

Ray spoke of the King of England’s power and riches “they say (and in my

judgment verily think) they are able to withstand us or any other. And

they marvel that my lord of Norfolk lieth in the north parts so long,

fearing that his delay and the sailing of the King’s ships means some

mischief to them.”[1317]

Ray brought back a letter, dated at Glasgow 11 April, from the

Chancellor of Scotland to Norfolk. The Chancellor acknowledged Norfolk’s

letter in the name of the Regents. He could scarcely believe that their

strict orders against the receipt of fugitives had been disobeyed, but

if Norfolk would give them time to make inquiries, anyone found in fault

should be sharply punished[1318]. The pursuivant reached Sheriffhutton

Castle, where Norfolk had taken up his residence, on 17 April. The

Chancellor’s letter and the report were forwarded to Cromwell. Norfolk

sent Ray back to Scotland to pick up some more news[1319]. It was

generally believed that there would be war. For example, Sir Thomas

Clifford, the captain of Berwick, was in London. One of his servants

wrote from Berwick to tell him that the Mayor and townsmen begged him to

show their needs to the King and the Privy Council, as war appeared to

be imminent and they were not prepared for a siege[1320].

The urgent reminders of the Border captains were not unheeded. The King

was as anxious as they to secure his frontiers. On 13 April lists were

drawn up of the northern fortresses, classified according to whether

they required repair or were defensible. Sir George Lawson, the

Treasurer of Berwick, received orders to victual the town. On 18 April

he wrote to Cromwell to ask for more explicit instructions, and for more

money, as he had not nearly so much as Cromwell expected[1321]. Norfolk

gave Cumberland similar orders for the victualling of Carlisle, and the

Earl sent a similar plaint to headquarters. The country was almost

desolated by the recent risings, and food of all sorts was very

difficult to procure. At Carlisle there was the old story of lack of

guns and men, which he had repeated times out of number[1322].

Norfolk had now taken up his quarters at Sheriffhutton Castle, which he

left only to hold assizes or suppress a monastery. He had the chief

pledges of Tynedale and Reedsdale in his hands, and hoped by their means

to be able to extort restitution from their kinsfolk. He was troubled

about the matter, for the honest subjects who had been harried demanded

a great deal, and the raiders possessed very little[1323]. The ravages

of the Scots did not improve the honest men’s chances of compensation.

In April there were several Scots raids on both the East and the West

Marches, and Lord Maxwell would not appoint a date for redress. In point

of fact both the English and the Scots wardens were convinced that war

would break out in a few weeks; and they thought it useless to make

appointments that would not be kept and to administer law in a district

which might any day be plunged into anarchy[1324].

Lowther’s spies brought him word that James V was expected daily. All

the ships on the west coast had gone out to meet him[1325]. In all

Scotland the common bruit was that there would be war when the King came

home[1326]. Great preparations were made for his reception. He was

expected on May Day, for at length the wind was in his favour. Lowther

wrote to Cumberland that provision could hardly be made for Carlisle in

time, “for either now war of Scotland when the King’s purse is full of

the French gold, or never.” He cheerfully added that if corn were sent

to Carlisle there was no mill in the castle to grind it, and if they

obtained good ordnance, there was no one who could shoot guns. He had

sent a spy to Edinburgh to bring news of James’ arrival. This letter was

sent on St Mark’s Day, 25 April[1327].

Amid the rising excitement Norfolk was calm. He understood the situation

better than the gentlemen of the Marches, who were soldiers, but not

statesmen. He knew that peace or war depended on Francis I, and that

England was not on such terms with France as to cause immediate alarm.

Still, he thought it well to be prepared. He had such good espial in

Scotland that no move could be made without his knowledge. Berwick

Pursuivant reached Edinburgh on his second mission on 23 April. He

carried to the Chancellor another letter which demanded the delivery of

English rebels. The Scots Council was heartily tired of these demands.

When Ray appeared before them he was asked, “What is the cause ye send

your friars to us?” He replied, “We send none, we had liever keep them

ourself.”

“If they tarried with you, ye had made martyrs of them.” “Nay,”

interposed the Chancellor, “but patriarchs.”

On 25 April Ray waited on the Bishop of Aberdeen to give him Norfolk’s

thanks for a present of hawks. In answer to the Bishop’s promise that he

would pray that the King and all England might be made good men, Norfolk

sent the message that in no country was God better served, and that the

Bishop of Rome had no authority out of his own diocese. The Treasurer

replied that he felt no grudge towards England for that matter, “but for

the cruelness of you that put down your own poor commons.”[1328] Ray

brought back to Norfolk a reply from the Chancellor which again promised

that the cases which he mentioned should be investigated[1329], and a

secret message from the Queen Mother that no lord in Scotland would give

the King her son counsel friendly to England[1330].

On 2 May Henry sent a gracious letter of thanks to Norfolk for his

services in the north. The King still intended to make a royal progress

to York, where he would declare a general pardon, with only a few

exceptions. He would see about paying Norfolk’s expenses, though “to be

plain with you we think that divers of the gentlemen ... might well have

served us better cheap, for some part of a recompense of their former

offences.... We do accept in good part the declaration of your opinion

touching the Marches. Nevertheless we doubt not but you will both

conform your own mind to find out the good of that order which we have

therein determined, and cause other by your good mean to perceive the

same.” Finally money had been sent for the victualling of Berwick and

Carlisle[1331]. Berwick was now in process of being put into a

thoroughly defensible condition[1332]. The other Border fortresses were

constantly in the King’s mind, and suggestions on the subject were often

laid before the Privy Council, but they seem to have had no immediate

effect[1333].

At this time Norfolk was vainly petitioning the King for leave to come

to court. On 9 May he excused his repeated requests. He explained that

his character was being attacked in his absence. He mentioned the

rumours that he had encouraged the rebels[1334]. It was said that he had

sent for his son, the Earl of Surrey, to instruct him in northern

affairs in order that he might presently take his father’s place.

Norfolk protested that all these tales were false. He had never

encouraged the rebels. He had sent for his son partly because he had

hoped the King would give him leave to come south for a short time, and

he could not have kept his retinue in the north without Surrey; and

partly because “in truth I love him better than all my children, and

would have gladly had him here to hunt, shoot, play cards, and entertain

my servants, so that they should be less desirous of leave to go home to

their wives.” Norfolk besought the King, if he thought him a true man,

to allow him to come up and answer his enemies[1335]. He protested that

if he had not been on the King’s service not all the Earl of

Northumberland’s lands would have kept him so long in the north[1336].

If he stayed much after Michaelmas, he thought it would cost him his

life. He had also many private reasons to justify his wish to return to

London[1337].

Henry replied on 13 May that he had heard none of the slanders to which

Norfolk referred; if he had, he would have mentioned them to the Duke.

“You know our nature is too frank to retain any such thing from him that

we love and trust.” Norfolk must not credit all the light tales that

reached his ears. He could not be spared from the north until after the

King’s progress, which would shortly take place. Henry hoped that the

Duke would settle all disputes, so that he might not be troubled with

petitions. The tone of the King’s letter was friendly, but, though he

declared himself assured that Norfolk had not sent for Surrey for “any

purpose not to our good contentment,” yet he pointed out that as the

Duke had summoned his son without consulting the King, it gave an

occasion for people to think evil, which might have been avoided[1338].

In fact Norfolk protested too much about Surrey. The cautious old

nobleman believed that he had recovered after his first false step, and

was beginning once more to feel his way towards the object of his

ambition, the dictatorship of the north. It was the dream of many

powerful men to hold the place there which the Percys alone had held.

Norfolk had declared that a nobleman must rule there—that this man must

have the joint powers of Warden of all the Marches and Lieutenant of the

North. Then he held off and suggested that the Earl of Cumberland should

have the West Marches and the Earl of Rutland the Middle and East.

Norfolk did not suggest anyone to fill the great office his imagination

had summoned up; he intimated that it would not become him to suggest

the obvious man. In fact all his letters were full of his hatred of the

north, and his fear that the climate would be the death of him. “For all

the lands the Earl of Northumberland hath and had” he would not tarry

there after Michaelmas[1339]. “All the Earl of Northumberland’s

land,”—at that time they become a refrain in Norfolk’s letters, the

refrain of his ambition. He kept a careful eye on the dying Earl’s

extravagances. If the Earl wished to sell wood, Norfolk saved the Percy

forests from the axe[1340]. Northumberland was giving away his goods and

houses, even the bricks of Wressell Castle, perhaps in a vindictive

effort to save something from the King. Norfolk reported this to

Cromwell and declared that it must be stopped[1341].

At the same time the Duke suggested that the household stuff of Jervaux

and Bridlington, and of Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, and Sir John

Bulmer, should be stored in the King’s wardrobe at Sheriffhutton Castle,

for the use of the Council of the North, or of any nobleman whom the

King might send to those parts. If the goods were sold he said that the

King would not receive a third of their value[1342]. This is another

sign of the way his thoughts were tending. Later he wrote that Cromwell

would marvel if he knew how often Norfolk had been urged by the northern

gentlemen to ask for some of Northumberland’s lands and to settle down

among them. But he was determined never again to cross the Trent

northwards, unless he were with the King, or marching against the King’s

enemies[1343].

Clearer hints were never dropped. Norfolk loathed the north,—but if the

King made it worth his while, very well worth his while, he was the

nobleman who would be lieutenant and warden at once. Henry must have

laughed with Cromwell over Norfolk’s palpable ambition. The King had

fairly rid himself of the Percys, and he would never put a Howard or any

other nobleman in their place. Without a considerable grant of land,

Norfolk could not turn to advantage the influence which he thought he

possessed in the north; nor was his fear or favour there so great as to

enable him to take the Percys’ place, even though he held their lands.

He had deceived the northern men, and they were not likely to forget all

that they owed to “this false duke.”

The Howards had no ancient connection with the north; their influence

began at Flodden and might well have ended at Doncaster, if fate had not

been contrary. The Percys had been surrounded by all the splendour of

hereditary right and traditional leadership; they had made the north

famous, and a hundred tales gave them a place in the hearts of the

people. Now the great house was represented by the old Countess who

outlived all her sons, and by Sir Thomas Percy’s two little boys. Fallen

though it seemed, the house of Howard could not take its place; nor did

the White Lion ever put down the Blue. The Dacres might have filled the

place of the greatest lords in the north, but after years of true

service on the Borders the King and the Clifford feud had left Lord

Dacre a ruined man. Henry had little to fear from the Earl of

Cumberland, because of his many feuds and the hatred of his own tenants.

As to the Earl of Westmorland, he was one of the few noblemen who cared

less for place and power than for a quiet life and a safe head. Norfolk

was allowed to imagine that he was winning the north for himself when he

was really buying service for the King. No doubt Henry thought that the

illusion did no harm and might make him work better.

James V of Scotland had at last embarked on his homeward voyage. It was

a long and slow one. About six o’clock on the evening of Tuesday 15 May

his ships lay at anchor off Scarborough. Norfolk wrote to Cromwell: “If

God would have sent such good fortune, that he might have landed in

these parts, I would so honestly have handled him that he should have

drunk of my wine at Sheriffhutton, and the Queen also, before his return

to Scotland.”[1344] There is a sinister ring in the words. Kings of

Scotland were not so often guests as prisoners in the King of England’s

castles.

If Norfolk had tried the experiment, he might have found unexpected

difficulty in taking James. A party went ashore from the King’s fleet to

buy victuals in Scarborough, and several boats put out to James’ ship.

To one Englishman James said: “Ye Englishmen have let me of my return;

an if ye had not been, I had been at home forty days past. But now I am

here and will be shortly at home, whoso saith nay.”

A party of twelve English fishermen came to speak with the King of

Scots. On coming into his presence, they fell on their knees and

“thanked God of his healthful and sound repair, showing how they had

long looked for him, and how they were oppressed, slain and murdered,

desiring him for God’s sake to come in, and he should have all.” To this

pass had Norfolk’s pacification brought the northern men, who had

hitherto hated the Scots worse than the devil. James was a good deal

troubled by this offer from his uncle’s subjects. He refused to speak to

a gentleman who came aboard, lest the man should say the same thing.

Presently the fleet sailed from Scarborough with so light a wind that

Norfolk thought they might make Aberdeen, but not the Forth. At

Whitburn, near Tynemouth, James cast anchor again, and ten Englishmen

came to him with the same complaints, “promising plainly that if the

said King of Scots would take upon him to come in all should be

his.”[1345] One or two boats went ashore and a party of Frenchmen and

Scots landed. With them was an Englishman, James Crane, who was in the

service of the French Vice-Admiral. He was really one of Cromwell’s

spies, but he probably passed as a refugee. With his companions he met

the priest of the parish, and asked what news there was in England. The

priest replied, “Ill news, for they kill and hang up men in this

country.” Crane seems to have abused the King of England, to lead the

unsuspecting priest into further conversation. He asked where the Duke

of Norfolk lay, and the priest said either at Sheriffhutton or at York;

he added that the Duke dealt so cruelly with the north parts that he

wished Norfolk were hanged on one side of a tree and Cromwell on the

other. If the King of Scots had come home five months sooner and had

entered England, the priest declared that he would have helped to carry

him in triumph to London. As they talked by the seaside, he pointed out

the lie of the coast: “Lo, here is as good and as ready landing for men

as any place in England.”[1346]

On 18 May eleven of James’ ships were sighted from Berwick. They lay

becalmed in sight of the town from noon that day until the morning of

the 19th. A party from one of the vessels landed at Alnmouth, and the

Queen’s gentleman usher rode on to Edinburgh to prepare for the royal

reception. Sir Thomas Clifford kept good watch while the King of Scots

lay so near, and sent out horsemen during the night to see if any man

came ashore[1347]. James must have been moved by the petition of the

English fishermen. When his ship drew to the northwards of Berwick, he

looked back upon the town and said to the gentlemen in attendance on

him, “if he lived one year he should himself break a spear on one

Englishman’s breast.”

Berwick Pursuivant was again on mission to Scotland. He saw the King and

Queen land at Leith haven at ten o’clock on Whitsun Eve, 19 May 1537.

The Vice-Admiral of France and the Bishop of Limoges were the only great

men with him. His fleet consisted of ten great ships of France and four

Scots ships. On Whit Monday the King and Queen made their entry into

Edinburgh “and took their lodging in the Abbey of Holyrood House.”

In Edinburgh Berwick Pursuivant met James Crane, the English spy in the

French Vice-Admiral’s service. Crane, seeing by the arms of England “in

a box upon his breast” that Ray was an Englishman, took him aside to

talk to him. He asked Ray to carry credence to Ralph Sadler “upon a

token that when the said Ralph Sadler was in France, he did inquire for

the said James at his own house in Rouen.” The credence was an account

of the voyage, especially of the two embassies of English fishermen and

peasants who had spoken with James. All the French ships were going

home, except the _Salamander_, which was a present from Francis to his

son-in-law. Crane was obliged to go with his master, though he would

have “given £20 on the condition that he might himself come through your

Highness’ realm to show further his mind in the premisses.”

Ray reported this to Sir Thomas Clifford at Berwick, and on 26 May the

account was sent on to the King[1348]. By this time all the French ships

had passed Berwick on their homeward voyage[1349]. Norfolk called

Crane’s story “some lies out of Scotland,” and assured Cromwell that it

was totally false, for he himself had been at Bridlington the day after

James passed, and had examined the only Englishman on the coast who had

spoken to the Scots King[1350]. Norfolk was anxious to discredit the

report, as he had been insisting for some time past that the north was

reduced to perfect obedience and loyalty. Sir John Neville wrote that

all the people rejoiced that the King and Cromwell were coming to the

north. It was a pity that Richard Cromwell was not there to hear them

talk; no men ever repented so sorely as they did[1351].

With his usual prudence Cromwell paid more heed to the foul than the

fair reports. In spite of Norfolk’s scepticism Crane was summoned from

France, and sent on 20 July to Norfolk at Sheriffhutton[1352]. The Duke

still made light of his story, as his geography had been much confused

by the long voyage. He described a place which he said lay to the south

of Scarborough, but no one could recognise it, and he could not give the

names of the “false knaves” who had spoken to James[1353]. To settle the

matter Norfolk sent him with a sure, wise and secret gentleman to ride

all along the north coast from Flamborough to Tynemouth in order to see

if Crane could recognise the place. His description of it was that the

church steeple was a sea-mark, that the church was dedicated to St

Andrew, and that the vicar was one of the King’s chaplains; it was with

his parish priest that Crane had held the seditious conversation. When

Crane and his companion came in sight of Whitburn, Crane declared that

that was the steeple. On inquiry the wise gentleman learned that the

church was dedicated to St Andrew and that the vicar was Dr Marshall,

one of the King’s chaplains. Norfolk was obliged to admit that there

might be truth in Crane’s story[1354].

Crane could not say where the fishermen lived, and he did not know their

names, but he described the leader of the party as a mariner with black

hair and a weather-beaten countenance[1355]. The priest of Whitburn,

Robert Hodge, was examined by Norfolk and his council. He confessed his

words, but declared that Dr Marshall had never spoken sedition and often

preached against the Pope[1356]. Norfolk sent Sir Thomas Hilton, the

sheriff of Durham, to discover those who had been aboard the French

Admiral’s ship, and to arrest the leader of the party, if he had not

gone to Shetland for the fishing[1357]. James Crane was given a pardon

and leave to return to France[1358]. On 22 September Robert Hodge and

two unnamed mariners, one of whom was the leader of the fishermen, were

hanged in chains at Newcastle-upon-Tyne[1359].

In order to prevent James’ interviews with the discontented peasants

from raising false hopes in Scotland, Henry sent Ralph Sadler as

ambassador to James with professions of friendship and instructions to

urge the King of Scots to follow his lead by throwing off the Pope and

confiscating Church property[1360].

All this while the Duke of Norfolk had been gradually going through an

immense amount of law-work. A great many people had been plundered or

had lost their goods during the rebellion. Most of them must have been

poor men, for little or nothing can be learnt about their wrongs. If any

full account of Norfolk’s proceedings for redress remained, it would

contain many local details of the Pilgrimage. On 18 May he wrote to

Gardiner and Sir Francis Brian, who were on an embassy in France, with

some natural self-satisfaction:—

“This country, thanked be God, is, I think, at this hour in as good

obedience as any part of the realm and of such sort that of late at my

coming hither I had not thought possible it should of long time have

been brought to so good pass. There was marvellous spoils at the time

of the insurrection through all these countries and divided in

thousands of men’s hands; and yet such restitution made that at this

day there is very few that is not agreed withal, and the parties

satisfied. It should be a very unreasonable thing that I would command

to be done here that should not be shortly accomplished in all my

Lieutenancy; save only in Tynedale and Reedsdale, of whom I have ten

pledges at Sheriffhutton which lie upon their lives if their country

men do not well. Finally I pray God send us three grace merrily to

meet this winter at London.”[1361]

There are details of two cases of spoil and restitution, but as they

both concern rich men, they are probably not characteristic of the rest.

The first concerned the plundering of Blythman’s house at York, and has

already been described[1362]. The second was the case of Robert

Holdsworth, vicar of Halifax; his vicarage was appropriated by the

rebels, his goods carried off by his enemies the Tempests, and his

hidden pot of gold was found by Thomas Lacy[1363].

During the first week of Lent 1536–7 Thomas Lacy went to confession. He

told his ghostly father how he had found the money and asked what he

should do with it. The confessor advised him to keep it until after Low

Sunday [8 April]. Two or three days after the appointed date, Lacy

brought the money to his ghostly father’s room in a canvas pepper poke,

and from there carried it to the vicarage, dropped it over the wall into

the court, and left it. With an impulse as natural as dishonest, he kept

£67 for himself; but presently he repented again and gave it up to Sir

Alexander Emmet, Holdsworth’s parish priest. Out of the whole sum Lacy

had spent only 26_s._ 6_d._ “about his seeding.”[1364]

The Vicar returned to Halifax from London “after Mid-Lent Sunday” [11

March]. He had been urging his own cause with Cromwell, while Sir Henry

Saville petitioned the Duke of Norfolk on his behalf. When he reached

home and found the treasure gone, he did not complain to Norfolk and

mentioned his loss only to the friends who knew of its hiding-place, Sir

Henry Saville, Alexander Emmet, his sister and her son[1365].

While Holdsworth was in London he had obtained writs of attachment

against the Lacys and others who had plundered his vicarage. During

Easter Week he went to York and begged Norfolk’s favour in the matter.

The Duke promised that he should have restitution or the writs should be

executed. Holdsworth was still too prudent to mention the great sum that

he had lost.

About a week later Alexander Emmet delivered £789. 8_s._ 9_d._ to

Holdsworth in gold, simply saying that it came to him in confession. The

priest must have been waiting in the vicarage court for the heavy bag

that came over the wall[1366].

The matter might have ended there to the satisfaction of everyone

concerned, but too many people were in the secret. The Vicar had

subpoenas against Lacy and his servants, but they did not appear. Lacy

said contemptuously, “If they will have my head they shall fetch it.” He

had nicknamed one of his servants Audley and another Cromwell, and said

he could not fail to do well having both the Lord Chancellor and the

Lord Privy Seal with him. He admitted that he had robbed the Vicar, but

he said that the money was treasure-trove; apparently he argued from

this that he had as good a right to it as any man[1367]. By this means

the rumour of “treasure-trove” reached the ears of the Duke of Norfolk,

and he determined that the government should be no loser.

On 12 July Norfolk sent for all the parties to appear before him[1368].

On 20 July the Vicar was a close prisoner, allowed to speak only to

those whom Norfolk appointed. The Duke had consulted Chaloner and

Babthorpe about the law of treasure-trove, and they agreed that unless

the Vicar could prove the money to be his, it was the King’s. Before

examining the witnesses Norfolk proposed to send the money to the King,

and then, if Holdsworth had too strong a claim to be denied, the Duke

would give him licence to sue for its restoration[1369]. It was easy to

guess the result of such an application.

The witnesses proved quite conclusively that the money was the Vicar’s,

and that he had hidden it himself. There was no evidence that any part

of it had ever been treasure-trove. Norfolk’s council believed that the

money was really the Vicar’s because there were many crowns of five

shillings among the coins found in the pot, and this coin had come into

use very recently[1370]. Norfolk was vexed at this turn of the case, and

asked Cromwell for instructions. He collected all the Vicar’s money that

he could lay hands on and accused Holdsworth of cheating the revenue,

“living covetously like a man of £40 promotions,” when he could well

spend £200 a year[1371].

On 25 July Sir Henry Saville wrote to Cromwell on the Vicar’s

behalf[1372]. Holdsworth brought an action in the Court of Star Chamber

against Lacy, but the result is unknown[1373]. It is possible that the

government obtained for Holdsworth restitution of his plundered goods,

and at the same time robbed him of his fortune, but if this were so, the

Vicar was not ruined. On the contrary, he retained too much money for

his own safety, as in May 1556 he was murdered by thieves in the

night-time in the vicarage house[1374].

Norfolk was empowered to attend to the doctrine of the north as well as

its peace. He encouraged the various anti-papal preachers who were sent

there, such as Dr Layton and Dr Addison[1375], and suggested that the

Archbishop of York and the other principal ecclesiastics might not only

promote “such well-learned and also well-willed priests,” but also “find

others at their own charges continually to go about and preach.” If this

had been done before he thought “no such follies had been attempted as

hath been.”[1376]

About the beginning of June Norfolk sent round circulars to all justices

of the peace and to the remaining monasteries, forbidding them to give

any relief to sturdy vagabonds. He said that the alms of the religious

houses had encouraged beggars, and that the justices were slack, but now

he intended so to deal with them that Cromwell would probably hear of

great numbers coming southward[1377].

On 3 June the good news of the Queen’s pregnancy was confirmed. Norfolk

was in York and gave orders for general rejoicings. The Te Deum was sung

in the afternoon and at night bonfires were lighted all through the

city. To increase the merrymaking Norfolk gave four hogsheads of wine

from his own cellar to be broached in different parts of the city for

all passers-by.

York was in a ferment of preparation for the King’s visit; the

countryside had to prepare lodging and stabling for a large and

magnificent company. Two or three hundred extra beds were being made.

Fortunately the hay-harvest was good, or it would have been hard to

provide for the horses in the royal train[1378]. But all the

preparations were in vain. The King changed his mind. It is clear from

Norfolk’s letters that he had never really believed that Henry would

come, and had been only partly convinced by his repeated assurances. On

12 June the King sent the Duke his reasons for delaying his visit to the

north until another year. The reasons were many and ingenious, such as

his reluctance to leave the Queen at this critical period, and the

delicate state of foreign affairs; but the real motive for delay, which

Norfolk was to keep strictly to himself, was the King’s physical

condition. His legs were worse, and his physicians advised him not to

travel in the heat of the year. As he could not come to pardon the north

in person, he would shortly send down “a personage of honour” with a

general pardon; Norfolk might announce this. The King graciously said

that he could not be better served than he was at present, but as the

Duke desired his recall so earnestly, he should soon receive it. The

King intended to establish a standing council and desired the Duke’s

advice as to its composition[1379].

This was the first explicit statement of the King’s intentions for the

future government of the north, but it was so vaguely worded that it did

not seriously clash with Norfolk’s ambition. The north might be ruled by

a council, but the council might be ruled by the King’s lieutenant.

Norfolk was still cautious. In his next letters, dated 16 June, he

thanked the King for the promise of release. If his master knew how ill

he had been he would not wonder at his desire “to be out of this cold

country, where hath been two days this week great frosts in the morning,

with the most cold weather that ever I saw in such a time of year.” For

the Council of the North he thought the King should either send down a

lieutenant or make the Bishop of Durham president; he did not recommend

either of the northern earls. For the councillors he recommended Sir

Thomas Tempest, Sir Marmaduke Constable, Sir William Evers, Sir Ralph

Ellerker, and Sir Brian Hastings. Dr Magnus was growing old and “less

able every day.” Norfolk spoke very highly of Babthorpe, Chaloner and

Bowes, but they were badly paid. The Duke was heartily glad to hear that

the King was sending a pardon to put despair out of “foolish, fearful

heads.” He asked that ten or twelve pardons might be sent him, with

blank schedules attached, in which he could insert, with the advice of

his council, the names of those to be excepted from the pardon[1380].

At this time Border affairs loom large in Cromwell’s memoranda and in

the proceedings of the Privy Council, filling the place previously

occupied by the northern insurgents. Lists of members proposed for the

Council of the North, and of officers and pensioners on the Borders were

drawn up, and amended, and drawn up again, until it is hard to say which

is merely a “device” and which a final order[1381].

The repairs of Berwick and Sheriffhutton were proceeding as fast as lack

of money would allow[1382]. Sir Thomas Clifford was at feud with Lionel

Grey, the porter of Berwick[1383]. Norfolk wished the King to have them

reconciled, as Grey was a man whom Sir William Evers, the deputy warden

of the East Marches, could not spare[1384].

On the Middle Marches Sir Reynold Carnaby had succeeded the murdered

Roger Fenwick in the dangerous office of Keeper of Tynedale. Norfolk

disliked Carnaby, who was a creature of Cromwell’s, and said sneeringly

“that by hearing say he is more than half weary of his being in these

parts.” On 26 June Norfolk expected the Council of the Marches to wait

on him at Sheriffhutton. He intended to “lay it sore to them” that their

country was no stronger against the Scots raiders of Liddesdale, “which

weekly doth run upon Carnaby’s offices.”[1385]

The Duke was investigating the circumstances of Roger Fenwick’s murder.

The three murderers, John Charleton, Rinian Charleton and John Dod, fled

to Scotland and were never captured. Lionel Grey accused Edward

Charleton, Cuthbert Charleton, John Heron of Chipchase, George Heron his

son and John Heron of the Hall Barns his kinsman, as instigators of the

murder[1386]. This accusation was very satisfactory to Norfolk, as the

Charletons and Little John Heron of Chipchase were already wanted by the

government for their share in the rebellion, but it would be safer and

less awkward to punish them nominally for the murder. Little John Heron

was captured and sent to London, where he was imprisoned in the Fleet.

Heron of the Hall Barns fled to Scotland. George Heron appeared before

Norfolk, but he established his innocence so clearly that the Duke wrote

to Grey to require proof of the Herons’ guilt[1387]. On 7 July Lionel

Grey brought to the Duke “one of the men that hath detected” the part

played by the Herons in Fenwick’s murder[1388]. This sounds as if there

were other witnesses, but later Jerry Charleton alias Topping is

described as “the only accuser of the Herons,”[1389] and his character

was so bad that in the end his evidence was discredited[1390]. At

present, however, it was considered sufficient, but the Charletons could

not be captured by force or stratagem[1391].

Cromwell suggested that John Heron of Chipchase might be sent north to

stand his trial for Fenwick’s murder. Norfolk replied on 20 July that he

must not be sent north until the time was ripe. If he did not know that

he was accused of the murder, he must be led to believe that he would

soon be set free. If he had already been charged with it, he must be so

closely imprisoned that he could send no word of warning to his son

George or his son-in-law Cuthbert Charleton. It was important to lull

the suspicions of the Charletons, for it was quite impossible to capture

them while they were on the alert. Their own country was almost

impenetrable, and if they were attacked with fire and sword they had

only to cross the hills to Liddesdale[1392].

On 27 August Norfolk was still hoping to apprehend Edward and Cuthbert

Charleton and George Heron. As to Little John Heron, Norfolk directed

Cromwell as follows:

“Which John I require your good lordship may be secretly conveyed

hither and so delivered to the officers of my house, to be by them

conveyed to me at Newcastle, to be ordered according to justice. I

would he should be here on 20 September, and conveyed with a hood on

his head, and so secretly kept by the way that no man should know him

unto [_until_] his deliverance; which would also be in the night

because I have many pledges of Tynedale and Reedsdale here. For an it

were known he were here, I should neither take his son nor the others

that I would have. And if it be not known in the Fleet whither he

shall go, but conveyed in the night, the better.”[1393]

On 17 September Norfolk held an assize at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He made

George Heron foreman of the inquest, and the three murderers were

condemned in their absence. George Heron did his part, not suspecting

that Norfolk, who showed him such a fair countenance, was planning to

convict himself and his father of the same crime. George offered to go

home to Tynedale and arrest an arrant traitor. Norfolk sent him off with

the comment, “If he do I shall have in my hands two false harlots.” The

Duke intended to arrest George Heron on his return, and to seize his

father’s house, goods and lands for the King’s use. The news from

Tynedale was that Cuthbert Charleton was dead[1394].

At the next assizes, on 26 September, John Heron and Edward Charleton

were indicted in their absence as accessories to the murder of Roger

Fenwick. John Heron had not been sent north, and there was no evidence

against George Heron, but nevertheless the latter was arrested and

imprisoned[1395]. The Charletons were outlawed, and the Keeper of

Tynedale carried on a long guerilla war against them, in which the

Charletons, having allies in Scotland, were on the whole

successful[1396].

Little John Heron of Chipchase was never sent north with a hood over his

face to be hanged. He was called before the Privy Council and convinced

the King of his loyalty and worth. In 1539 he rode home in triumph as

Constable of Harbottle, with a pension in his pocket[1397]. Edward

Charleton was pardoned in 1539; even John Heron of the Hall Barns

received mercy and was employed in carrying letters of importance to the

north[1398]. At length, in August 1540, Little John Heron was offered

the post of Keeper of Tynedale. He refused, unless he were given

Reedsdale as well, and he was given both[1399]. Thus he completely

superseded his old enemy Sir Reynold Carnaby. Sir Thomas Percy was

avenged so far as vengeance lay in Little John Heron’s power. The wily

mosstrooper was one of the few men who discovered the length of Henry

VIII’s foot.

After this digression it is necessary to return to Norfolk at

Sheriffhutton Castle. On 2 July 1537 Sir Cuthbert Radcliff, Thomas

Carnaby, Cuthbert Shaftoe and George Heron waited on the Duke, and

declared the true state of Northumberland. The raiding was chiefly the

work of Liddesdale, reinforced by English outlaws. Norfolk daily

expected an answer from the King of Scots to his repeated complaints of

the protection which English outlaws received in Scotland. Sir John

Widdrington was trying to capture certain Scots thieves in England who

would be useful as exchanges. The Northumbrians convinced Norfolk that

Tynedale had not done nearly as much harm as was reported, but no

restitution had been made as yet[1400].

The West Marches were reorganised about the beginning of July. Sir

Thomas Wharton was made deputy warden, in spite of Norfolk’s advice to

the contrary. He was also made steward of the abbey of Holm Cultram and

the priories of Carlisle and Wetherall. Under him there were four

commissioners. Sir Thomas Wentworth became captain of Carlisle, and

thirty-three gentlemen of those parts received patents as the King’s

pensioners. All these commissions and patents, with the oaths for the

different officials, were dated 28 June[1401]. They were first sent to

Norfolk, who forwarded them on 3 July to Wentworth, together with a

summons to all the gentlemen to meet him at York, where he was going to

witness Aske’s execution on 12 July[1402].

Norfolk thought that the arrangements for the West March were better

than those for the other two. He wished to call Lord Dacre and Wharton

before him and “knit them in amity.” Dacre’s friendship was far more

important to the new Warden than that of the Earl of Cumberland, who had

little influence with the marchmen. The prickers of Gilsland were always

ready at Dacre’s word. Unruly though they were, he kept them in awe, and

he was respected even in Tynedale and Reedsdale[1403]. When Dacre was

Warden he had been both cruel and partial, sending word to his favourite

ill-doers to fly when he intended to make a raid; yet he was very

popular among the marchmen.

In spite of his general approbation, Norfolk as usual criticised the

King’s appointments[1404]. The Duke constantly endeavoured to draw all

the patronage of the north into his own hands. The dictatorship of the

north would be within reach if every Border officer were the Duke’s man,

and owed his appointment to his master. Norfolk, being on the spot,

could often choose better men than the King, who was guided only by

report. Nevertheless, so long as the Duke remained in the north, the

King would not reverse his decisions. After Norfolk’s departure, the

inefficient were replaced by more capable officers, but in the meanwhile

he grumbled in vain. The King would not allow him to make any promotions

on his own authority.

Norfolk was still urgently petitioning for leave to ride south. He was

ailing and described all his symptoms to Cromwell at great length.

Cromwell advised him to offer to stay longer in the north; the King had

promised that he should come home at Michaelmas. Norfolk replied from

Leckonfield on 8 July that if he stayed in the north until the cold

weather began he would die. He was ready to serve the King to the death

anywhere else; “but undoubtedly if I should know his pleasure to be to

command me to remain here, I am sure I should never have one merry day

in my life, and would incontinent determine myself for another world....

I may well perceive I have some back friends that thinketh long to hear

that I am out of this world.” The north was now in such good order, that

he considered there was no need for his presence; a lieutenant with a

good council would be enough[1405].

Sir Thomas Tempest, who had been attending on Norfolk, throughout his

northern progress[1406], wrote to Cromwell on 10 July. He said that

Norfolk had shown him Cromwell’s letter which advised him to remain in

the north. To obey would certainly endanger Norfolk’s life during the

winter; nevertheless the Duke ought not to be recalled at once, because

he was so much loved and feared throughout the north. “Although these

parts be now well stayed, their late perversity should be noted, and, as

many men of blood and well befriended have justly suffered, it is to be

feared their friends are not well contented.” Tempest suggested that

Norfolk should stay until the end of October, and then leave a council

with a good president to carry on the work until Easter, when the Duke

could return for the summer[1407]. Tempest wrote to Bishop Tunstall, who

was then in London, to the same effect. Tunstall was the proposed

president of the new council. Tempest urged that the Bishop knew well

the need there was for Norfolk in the north[1408].

These two letters were obviously inspired by Norfolk, and yet they were

very different in effect from his own. Norfolk never wishes to see the

north again; yet Tempest suggests that the Duke should return in the

spring. Norfolk says that the country is quiet and can do without him;

Tempest, that “the country is not so clearly reduced to all goodness

that he should be taken from these parts.” All this was the next move in

Norfolk’s game. He did not wish to bring the country into such order

that the King could do without him. He hoped, on his return to the

south, to be followed by a stream of petitions to the King that he might

be sent back; even a minor disturbance would not be amiss. If Norfolk

could prove to Henry that he was indispensable, he would be in a

position to make terms. He had declared that he would not live in the

north for all Northumberland’s lands, but the King could test this by

experiment. Henry, on the other hand, meant to keep the Duke in the

north until it was reduced to order, but not a minute longer. When he

did recall Norfolk, he had no intention of sending him back. Norfolk was

told that he should be recalled before the cold weather set in. No word

was said of a new mission in the spring, but he protested that he was

immensely grateful.

The Earl of Wiltshire’s minstrel had composed a song about Norfolk,

which he said had received the Duke’s approval. The inference is that

the song was in praise of true noble blood and predicted its triumph

over upstarts. Norfolk promised Cromwell so to punish the minstrel that

he would be afraid to sing such songs again[1409].

Norfolk was impatient for the arrival of a general pardon. He advised

that it should not extend beyond 20 February 1536–7. The murder of

Fenwick and the welcome of the King of Scots both took place after that

date, and consequently those who were involved in either would not be

able to claim the benefit of the pardon thus limited. Norfolk sent about

fifteen names to be excepted, and asked that room should be left for

himself and his council to insert a few more. Those whom he mentioned

were: Wilson and Woodmancy of Beverley, Marshall parish clerk of

Beswick, Waflin and Leache of Lincolnshire, Bradford and Paris monks of

Sawley, Roger Hartlepool monk of Jervaux, Helaigh canon of Coverham,

Edward Middleton, Henry King and Simon Marshal of Masham, Each friar of

St Robert’s of Knaresborough, Nicholas Musgrave, a friar of Appleby,

John Priestman of Lillesdale Hall, John Priestman son of William

Priestman of Helnesley [Helmsley?], Dr Marmaduke Walby, Towneley

chancellor of the Bishop of Carlisle, and the Prior of the White Friars

of Doncaster[1410]. Most of these men had fled to Scotland, but the

three last-named were prisoners in the Tower.

In Scotland James pursued an anti-English policy without actually

provoking a breach of the peace. Norfolk wrote of him on 3 July “he doth

keep so small an house that there is but only six messes of meat allowed

in his house, and the Queen his wife not like to escape without death,

and that not long unto as I am informed by divers ways.”[1411] The poor

young Queen died before 24 July[1412] of consumption, not, as might be

supposed from Norfolk’s letter, of starvation.

Sir Thomas Clifford’s spies reported that James “doth not use nor give

himself to any princely pleasure, like as he heretofore hath been

accustomed, but continually yet doth go about framing his ordnance in

most secret wise.” He had paid several midnight visits to Dunbar, and

Tantallon was prepared for war. Clifford contrasted with these

preparations the destitute condition of Berwick[1413], but as a matter

of fact the town was being provisioned and the fortifications repaired.

It was thought possible that James might change his policy on the death

of his French wife. It was reported that he was hesitating between a

renewal of the matrimonial alliance with France and an application to

England for the hand of Mary[1414]. On 2 August James came as far as

Dunbar with David Beaton, Abbot of Arbroath, whom he was about to

despatch on a diplomatic mission first to Henry and then to Francis.

Henry was making a short progress to Ampthill, and intended to receive

the ambassador there[1415].

Norfolk prepared to join the King at Ampthill to assist in the

negotiations with Scotland, but on 7 August he received definite orders

that he was not to leave Yorkshire. He replied with the bitterest

complaints of his treatment, and indeed he had a right to expect better

usage[1416]. Henry must have felt that he might slight the Duke too much

as he tardily consented, and Norfolk joined him at Grafton on 15 August,

to give his advice upon the Scots negotiations and on the appointment of

the Council of the North[1417]. The Abbot of Arbroath promised that all

the English fugitives in Scotland should be exchanged for Scots rebels

in England, but his mission did not otherwise give satisfaction, as he

was going to France to arrange a new French marriage for James, who was

in perfect accord with Francis[1418].

Norfolk and Henry together determined that the president of the Council

of the North should be Bishop Tunstall of Durham[1419]. Tunstall was

very unwilling to undertake the arduous task. He protested that he was

too old to be fit for anything but teaching and preaching. The people

hated him, and whatever punishment he inflicted would be imputed to

private malice, which would bring discredit on the King’s justice. He

was neither powerful enough to punish disobedience nor rich enough to

keep up the hospitality which would be expected of him, and this would

lead evil-doers to despise and mock the King’s authority[1420]. His

objections went for nothing. Henry had decided that he was the most

suitable man for the post, and Norfolk probably hoped that Tunstall

would prove so complete a failure that he himself would have to be

reappointed. Tunstall was ordered to prepare himself and to forget his

displeasure against Robert Bowes[1421], who had plundered his palace at

Bishop Auckland during the rebellion[1422].

Norfolk’s visit to the south was a short one[1423]. He was back at

Sheriffhutton on 27 August. Now that the Council of the North was an

established fact he was impatient to be gone. It remained to be seen

whether he could ever compass his return. On 27 August he wrote “I

am ... very desirous to bring Tynedale, before my departing hence, in

better order than it is,”[1424] but the task proved too long and he left

it unaccomplished.

On the West Marches Sir Thomas Wharton was on the whole a successful

warden, and under his rule there was at least a very fair appearance of

regular justice, both on the Marches and in Cumberland, although this

did not mean that there was any lack of such incidents as inspired the

Border ballads[1425].

The Middle Marches were a very different affair. Norfolk was longing to

make his name terrible in the district which had treated his authority

with such light-hearted contempt. He wished to arrange that James V

should make a descent on Liddesdale at the same time as he attacked

Tynedale. The Abbot of Arbroath held out some hope that his master would

consent to this, but on 8 September James replied to Norfolk that he

would give his wardens such charge that a simultaneous raid of this sort

would be quite unnecessary[1426]. Consequently the Duke was obliged to

undertake the Borders without James’ help.

While Norfolk awaited James’ answer at Sheriffhutton he busied himself

in reconciling the feuds of various Yorkshire gentlemen. Among others

Sir Henry Saville came to an agreement with “all his neighbours and

sisters” and might prove a good servant. On 5 September Norfolk was

suffering from a cold in the head. He wrote to Cromwell, and after

regaling him with his symptoms in great detail, proceeded to ease his

temper by abuse of his subordinates. According to his account the whole

of the north was in a state of Utopian peace except Tynedale and

Reedsdale, for which the Keeper and the warden were responsible.

“Widdrington would fain do well, but surely it is not in him. Carnaby is

so feared of his person that he doth nothing but keep the house. Men

doth much doubt of his hardiness having yet shown no part of manhood

since his coming hither. I would they were both in Paradise, so other

good were in their rooms; for by their defaults I shall be enforced, as

soon as I shall be able to travel, to ride to those cold parts which I

fear shall not be without some danger. And yet had I rather to adventure

the same, than to have the continual crying out of the poor people that

I have to come thither.”[1427]

Norfolk rode to Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 14 September, and found that no

restitution had been made for plunder taken during the rebellion, and

that there were under a dozen offenders to be tried. In fact all the

Border was very reluctant to deliver thieves to the law[1428], not from

mercy nor even from fellow-feeling, although the gentlemen of the

country were not much more honest than the reivers, but because when a

man was hanged his kinsmen would never forget the feud. The blood feud

was the weapon which enabled the mosstrooper to keep up his war against

the world; it was his last and best protection. The King’s deputy warden

might take a thief red-handed. If he brought him to the gallows many

things would follow. The deputy warden’s cattle would never be safe at

the pride of the moon; his hay-stacks and barns would mysteriously take

fire; wherever he went he would never ride safely, for on the open moors

an arrow might fly from a whinbush, and in the streets of a town a man

might lurch against him with a knife in his hand. It generally happened

that the warden let the thief go free.

Norfolk was very angry at this state of affairs. The blood feud made no

difference to him, as he was leaving the north so soon. He made further

complaints to the King of Carnaby and Widdrington, and proposed others

to be promoted in their places. If Tynedale and Reedsdale refused to

make restitution on the 20th and 21st September, “I will be busy with

them.” Reedsdale was not expected to give trouble, and if the men of

Tynedale proved more obstinate Norfolk would make a descent upon their

houses, burn them to the ground, set their standing corn ablaze, and

when the people were driven into the hills, he would lay garrisons “to

defend their malice,” whenever they wickedly tried to get something to

eat[1429].

The King answered on 18 September in one of those letters which must

have been such a trial to his servants. He remained blandly determined

that “whosoever kick against it” he would be served by the men of his

own choice and no others. As to Tynedale, he sent orders very unlike his

usual instructions. Clemency was to be shown. He expected Norfolk to

reform, not to destroy[1430]. It must be put to Henry’s credit that if

he had raised, for his own purposes, a breed of mosstroopers more savage

than their fathers, he did not like them to be slaughtered wholesale,

though it is doubtful whether this was due to some faint sense of his

own responsibility or merely to an anticipation of the next war with

Scotland.

Norfolk held two sessions at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, one on Monday 17

September, the other on Wednesday 26 September. Only nine thieves were

executed altogether, but both Tynedale and Reedsdale were at last

induced to make restitution or to put in sufficient pledges for

it[1431]. Norfolk said with natural pride that he had redressed above a

hundred wrongs since he came to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and that he would

leave the country better contented[1432]. He had “swept the houses so

clean” that the Bishop of Durham and his Council would find little to

do[1433]. The King fully approved of all his proceedings and sent him a

letter of thanks[1434].

On 28 September 1537 Norfolk left Newcastle-upon-Tyne[1435]. He was at

Sheriffhutton on 4 October[1436]. On 6 October he started on his journey

southward[1437]. His long mission was over. The government of the north

passed into other hands.

Instead of the old expedient by which the supreme authority was

conferred on a powerful nobleman, Henry had resolved that the north

should be governed by a council. Although Cromwell was a warm advocate

of this system, he cannot be given the credit for its invention.

Government by council was a favourite Tudor device from the days of

Henry VII onwards. It was said that in 1640 over a third of England was

ruled by various councils, offshoots of the Privy Council[1438].

Sufficient evidence has already been given to prove that the north

required a better system of government than it had hitherto enjoyed. The

Pilgrims at Pontefract had proposed that it should have adequate

parliamentary representation, that parliaments should sometimes be held

there, that law courts should be established at York competent to deal

with all but the most important cases, and that in general the interests

and welfare of the north should be treated as of equal importance with

those of the south.

Instead of this, the King resolved to treat the north as a conquered

province. It was placed under a form of government in which there was no

representation and from which there was no appeal. If the Council of the

North was to work at all, its decisions, however unjust, must be upheld

by the central government. The north had already undergone an

experimental foretaste of this method of rule, and had hated and

protested against it[1439], but the country was to groan under the

Council of the North for another hundred years, until released by the

Great Civil War. Yet the Council was not more autocratic than the Privy

Council itself, and such partial success as it had in enforcing law and

order was some compensation for the fact that it was entirely opposed to

the independent spirit of the people.

Most of the new council’s members had been leaders in the Pilgrimage;

such were Sir Ralph Ellerker, Sir Thomas Tempest, Robert Bowes, William

Babthorpe and Robert Chaloner. They were capable, ambitious men, bound

to make their way upwards. They were not insincere Pilgrims, but the

rising failed and they turned their energies to the King’s service as

the only course left open to them. Norfolk’s business was to conciliate

them and win them over, and he had succeeded: “all these men have their

price.” They had been willing to risk their lives for a cause, but

having escaped, they would not sacrifice their careers. As members of

the Council of the North, they helped to keep in subjection the country

whose liberties they had so lately borne arms to defend.

Norfolk and his council in 1537 may be regarded as the forerunners of

the new council, and the King’s lieutenant, when there was one, was

always the president of the Council of the North.

The advantages which the King derived from the establishment of the

Council were obvious. It was small and could work easily and

effectively, for although a large number of members were sometimes

appointed, there were only five salaried members, who, with the

president and vice-president, were obliged to attend and were competent

to transact business[1440]. Its members were chosen and dismissed by the

King; there was no danger that the office would become hereditary or

that individual members might be too powerful. It was therefore safe to

trust them with very extensive powers.

The Council of the North had jurisdiction over the whole of the five

northern counties, Northumberland, Durham, Westmorland, Cumberland and

Yorkshire. Privileged districts such as the Palatinate of Durham were

entirely abolished. The Council was authorised to hear and determine all

offences connected with unlawful assemblies and breaches of the peace,

and all actions concerning property and debts[1441]. Its duties were to

aid the ecclesiastical authorities in the repression of papists and

heretics, to maintain uniformity and good morals, to protect

agriculture, to defend the poor against the rich, to supervise the

justices of the peace[1442], and to provide for the defence of the

Border. “It was empowered to inflict almost any penalty short of death,”

and although in cases of difficulty it might appeal for advice to the

Privy Council, there was no appeal for suitors from its decisions[1443].

It administered justice according to either the law of the land or the

discretion of its members[1444]. The Council also held sessions, oyer

and gaol delivery, heard indictments for murder and felony, and executed

felons. “In this respect their powers exceeded even those of the Star

Chamber.”[1445] In short, the Council exercised all the powers

previously held by Norfolk.

Before 15 October 1537 the Council of the North held its first meeting

at York[1446]. It was composed of Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of Durham,

the president; Sir Thomas Tempest; Sir Ralph Ellerker; Sir Marmaduke

Constable the elder; Robert Bowes; William Babthorpe; Richard Bellasis;

Robert Chaloner; John Uvedale; Sir William Evers; and Thomas Fairfax,

the King’s serjeant-at-law[1447]. Robert Holgate, Bishop of Llandaff and

prior of Watton, also took part in its deliberations[1448]. The officers

of the court consisted of the Lord President, the Vice-President, four

or more learned Councillors, the Secretary, the King’s Attorney, two

Examiners, one Registrar, fourteen Attornies, one Clerk of the

Attachments, two Clerks of the Seal, one Clerk of the Tickets, one

Serjeant-at-Arms, one Pursuivant, ten Collectors of Fines, two

Tipstaves[1449].

The first report of the Council of the North has not been preserved, but

a letter from Tunstall to Cromwell, written at the same time (15

October), probably gives the information which was contained in it. Wide

as the powers of the Council were, the members were not satisfied. They

found that they had no power to levy men in order to enforce their

precepts; the gentlemen had all sworn to levy none save at the King’s

command. The Council referred the matter to the King, “considering

therewith that fire is more easily quenched in the spark than in the

flame.” They also referred two minor points to the King; they wished to

know what seal they should use, and they requested that the decrees of

the Duke of Richmond’s late council might be sent to help them in their

decisions[1450].

Finally they wished for instructions concerning the little heirs of the

house of Percy[1451]. It was now represented by Sir Ingram Percy, who

was dying by inches in the Tower, and Sir Thomas Percy’s two sons. The

Dowager Countess had been arrested by Sir Brian Hastings in February

1536–7. Her goods were seized and inventoried, but they were worth

little, even the plate being valued at “an hundred pounds or very easy

more.” She had few jewels and robes for a lady of her position. Hastings

good-naturedly wrote to Cromwell in her favour[1452]. Before the

beginning of October she had been released, her lands and goods were

restored to her, and she was living at Catton in Yorkshire[1453].

The Percy estates were viewed by the King’s surveyor Robert Southwell in

August[1454]. The government kept a careful eye on the natural heirs of

all this wealth, Sir Thomas Percy’s sons Thomas and Henry. On 8 July

Norfolk wrote: “As to Sir Thomas Percy’s children, I have entreated good

Sir Thomas Tempest to take them into his custody; they being at this

time in the Bishopric within two miles of his house; and have promised

him to have their costs paid for.”[1455] Sir Thomas soon grew weary of

his charge. Tunstall wrote on 15 October that Sir Thomas still kept the

children at Norfolk’s command; but “his house is not strong but very

weak, and within sixteen mile of Tynedale, no town betwixt, nor other

obstacle than the river of Tyne when the water is risen; for at low

waters there be two fords that every man may pass, by which the thieves

do much annoy our country. I know this to be true by experience, for I

have ridden the same way. He desireth much to be rid of the custody of

them, and demandeth of me licence to be absent for the keeping of them;

which reasonably I cannot deny and yet his presence were very necessary.

Some other place more within the country were more meet than his house,

and the children be young and must be among women.”[1456] The Council

must have feared that Sir Thomas Percy’s old friends the reivers of

Tynedale might carry off his children. Permission was given to place

them wherever it was thought best[1457].

With the fall of the house of Percy the old order of things ended. The

new began with the Council of the North. There is this excuse for Bowes

and the other Pilgrims who served on the Council; they probably believed

that they were saving the country from the Duke of Norfolk’s despotism.

Norfolk never realised his dream of a northern dictatorship. It was

improbable from the first that he would ever be able to force Henry to

concede him such a position, and it is quite incredible that the King

would have made such a grant willingly; but the northern gentlemen did

not know that. Norfolk’s pose was that of a faithful old servant who

reluctantly performed a disagreeable duty laid upon him by his master.

Partly because he needed Norfolk, and partly to gratify his love of

playing with a man’s hopes and fears, the King gave the Duke sufficient

public countenance to make this pose appear plausible. Bad as the

Council of the North might be, the gentlemen supported it, because they

believed it to be the lesser of two evils. Its tyranny was not so

unendurable as that of “this false Duke.”

NOTES TO CHAPTER XXI

Note A. The Border pledges were hostages. When the reivers were in

trouble they delivered up one of every surname or clan, in earnest of

their better behaviour. The object of the government was to obtain a

pledge who was sufficiently important to make his loss a matter of

anxiety to his surname. The object of the reivers was to induce the

government to accept as a pledge some man whom his friends did not

mind losing. Theoretically the life of the pledge was forfeit if his

people committed fresh offences, but the penalty seems very seldom to

have been exacted in full. The pledges were not usually kept in strict

confinement and were relieved by new comers every month or so. In the

case of disorders, however, the pledges were more strictly imprisoned,

and cases even occurred when they were half-starved until their

kinsmen were reduced to obedience.

An example of the chaffering over pledges occurred on Tuesday, 17

July, 1537. Sir Cuthbert Radcliff and Sir Reynold Carnaby called the

men of Tynedale to a meeting at Hexham for the restitution of spoil.

Edward and Cuthbert Charleton came in “under assurance,” and said that

they were willing to follow any order taken by the meeting. Edward

Charleton was anxious for the release of his pledge; he offered one of

his tenants in exchange, but Carnaby did not consider a tenant

sufficient. The other Charletons would neither pledge for nor with

Edward; they proposed to lay a separate hostage for themselves when

the first had returned. In this extremity Edward Charleton offered his

son, a boy of thirteen, whom Carnaby was ready to accept, as he

thought that his father would be loth to lose him[1458].

When Norfolk left the north the eight Border pledges whom he had kept

at Sheriffhutton Castle were removed to York, as no sufficient guard

remained at Sheriffhutton. In York the marchmen boarded at a

serjeant’s house and showed themselves every day to the

sheriffs[1459]. The Council of the North dared not imprison them for

fear “there would never more come in to be pledges.” Bishop Tunstall,

the president of the Council, objected to the presence of the pledges

in York. He was also annoyed because “two of the most active men of

all Tynedale” had come as pledges “to change and loose the others for

a season as has always been accustomed.” These two had promised

Norfolk to resist the inroads of the outlawed Charletons, and Tunstall

thought that they had come as pledges just before the full moon, when

they were most needed at home, to be “honestly ... quit of their

promise.” The Council of the North decided to move the pledges to

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, because “it is within eighteen miles of their

country, and coming thither they should learn no new ways, whereas now

coming hither [to York] so far from home, by exchange, they learn all

the byways of all countries adjoining unto them, which makes them more

bold to steal, when they know which way to escape with their

prey.”[1460]

The system of hostages is very characteristic of the age.

Fundamentally unjust, it was a survival of primitive barbarism. It was

clear that the pledges at Newcastle-upon-Tyne or York could not be

guilty of outrages on the Border, but if the guilty could not be made

to suffer, the innocent must be punished. This system was peculiarly

congenial to Henry. He openly looked upon the mother and brothers of

Reginald Pole, for instance, as hostages for his good behaviour. When

he defied the King, it was only Henry’s extreme benignity which

prevented him from ordering the Cardinal’s relations to instant

execution. They were in the end put to death almost avowedly as a

means of making the Cardinal suffer.

Note B. March treason was committed when an Englishman allied himself

with a Scot to attack another Englishman. Such crimes were

investigated and punished in the Wardens’ Courts. The penalty was

decapitation. Such a case was tried in October 1537 at Carlisle before

Sir Thomas Wharton, the King’s deputy warden[1461].

Note C. This letter is not included among the Letters and Papers of

Henry VIII. Raine’s reference is MSS Cotton. Caligula B iii, 241.