Chapter IX · THE EXTENT OF THE INSURRECTION

The main body of the Pilgrims’ army was at Pontefract on 21 October, 1536; leaving them there for the present, we will now follow the history of the rising in the northern counties from the outbreak of the insurrection. It will be convenient to carry this account on beyond the date which has been reached, up to the truce of 27 October, in order that the narrative may not be broken a second time.

In tracing the course of the rebellion in the far north, it must be remembered that Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, Westmorland and the towns of Berwick and Newcastle-upon-Tyne were exempted from the subsidy,—in fact, taking into consideration the remissions which were granted to them on account of their sufferings at the hands of the Scots, it may be said that these places were scarcely taxed at all^[888]. Consequently the insurgents lacked one of the bonds which united the subsidy men in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

In Cumberland and Westmorland the rising was almost entirely directed against enclosures and unpopular landlords, and received little support from the gentlemen or, with a few exceptions, from the clergy. In Durham and Northumberland, on the other hand, the gentry seem to have been more deeply involved than the commons, owing to the influence of the disinherited Percys. In the Yorkshire dales, as in Cumberland and Westmorland, the movement was chiefly social, and was directed against the Earl of Cumberland, while the gentlemen, who imitated the Earl on a small scale, naturally supported him against the rabble.

It would be incorrect to say that after the rising of Howdenshire and Beverley the rebellion spread northwards, as Hexham and the northern dales had been astir since the end of September, but these 193minor disturbances gained significance from the widespread movement further south.

The only monastery which offered any determined resistance to the Act for the Dissolution of the Smaller Monasteries was the priory of Augustinian canons at Hexham. Their house did not really come within the scope of the Act, as its yearly value was over £200, but for some reason or other it was included among those to be suppressed^[889]. The house had suffered in the Scots’ wars, and there is reason to believe that its condition was not very good, either financially or morally, but it was of great importance as a centre of hospitality in the barren region between England and Scotland. On 23 April, 1536, Archbishop Lee wrote to Cromwell begging that it might be spared because “wise men that know the Borders think that the lands thereof, although they were ten times as much, can not countervail the damage that is like to ensue if it be suppressed; and some way there is never a house between Scotland and the lordship of Hexham; and men fear if the monastery go down, that in process all shall be waste much within the land.”^[890] It seems probable that the canons received a royal exemption from the Act, or that the monastery was immediately refounded, but later in the year they must have heard that they were again in danger, whereupon the prior, Edward Jay, went up to London to try to make terms with Cromwell. He was unsuccessful, however, and returned sadly home by way of York. There he waited on the Archbishop, who received him in his barge, and in the presence of his chaplains and servants warned Jay to submit to the King’s will without attempting any resistance^[891].

The date of this interview is uncertain, but it seems to have been at the end of September, and when the prior returned home he found that the Archbishop’s advice had come too late. In his absence the sub-prior and the master of the dependent cell of Ovingham (two separate persons, not the same man) had laid in weapons for the defence of the monastery and had roused the people, who were the more easily moved as the hated Sir Reynold Carnaby had received the grant of its lands^[892].

On 28 September, before the prior’s return, the four commissioners for the dissolution were warned at Dilston that they 194would be resisted. Two of them who were local men, Robert Collingwood and Lionel Gray, rode on with a few servants to reconnoitre. They found the streets of Hexham full of armed men, the alarm bells ringing, and the gates of the Priory shut. The commissioners took up their stand outside, and parleyed with the master of Ovingham, who appeared on the leads of the monastery in harness, accompanied by servants in arms. His first words were, “We be twenty brethren in this house, and we shall die all, or that ye shall have this house.” The commissioners advised him to consult with his brethren before rejecting the royal commission, and the master withdrew to do so, commanding the hostile crowd which had gathered about the commissioners to do them no harm. After a space he returned with the sub-prior in canon’s robes. They brought the royal confirmation, delivered to the house under the great seal, showed it to the commissioners, and gave them their answer; “We think it not the king’s honour to give forth one seal contrary to another, and afore any either of our lands, goods or houses be taken from us we shall all die, and that is our full answer.” Gray and Collingwood returned with this reply to the other commissioners who were waiting for them at a little distance. They left behind in Hexham three of their servants, who rejoined them next day, and reported that as soon as their masters had withdrawn the monastery gates were thrown open, and the canons, all in harness, accompanied by some sixty armed men, marched out two by two to a place called the Green, from which they watched the meeting of the commissioners and their departure. When they were out of sight the canons returned to the Priory again. Such was the news that greeted Prior Jay on his return, and he despatched a canon to report it to Archbishop Lee^[893]. Other messengers were hastening from Hexham with the same news, one from the commissioners to the King^[894], and two from “old Carnaby” of Halton, who sent to his son Sir Reynold, and to the Archbishop, asking the latter to order the canons to submit^[895]. To each of the messengers the Archbishop replied by bidding the canons surrender, and Sir Reynold appealed to the Earl of Northumberland who wrote to Cromwell on 4 October^[896]. After receiving the report of the commissioners on 5 October the King sent orders that Hexham was to be taken and dissolved by force if necessary. The letter seems to have been 195meant for the Earl of Cumberland^[897], but the outbreak of the rebellion in Yorkshire prevented him from executing the order^[898].

The King also wrote to Archbishop Lee, whom he suspected of encouraging the canons, and Lee replied with one of his long, rambling letters of excuse^[899]; his writing is much faded, and difficult to decipher, but the letter shows that the Prior of Hexham was with him at York at the time of the commissioners’ visit, and therefore could not have taken part in the resistance which was offered to them at Hexham. Meanwhile in Hexhamshire matters were at a deadlock. No one in the neighbourhood would help the Carnabys against the canons, and no troops could advance from the south on account of the insurrection in Yorkshire. One of the local freebooters, little John Heron of Chipchase^[900], who was a follower of Sir Thomas Percy, determined to make use of this state of affairs for his own advantage. Accordingly on the morning of Sunday 15 October he appeared at Halton, and suggested to old William Carnaby that he should act as mediator between the two parties. Carnaby, at his wits’ end, accepted the offer, and Heron then rode over to Hexham, where he said nothing of his negotiations with the opposite party, but warned the canons that their only chance of saving their lives was to purchase the help of himself and his friends by granting them certain fees and then “he doubted not but by the help of his son-in-law Cuthbert Charleton—and of one Edward Charleton his uncle—with other such friends as they would make, but all the whole country of Tynedale would die and live in the quarrel.” The documents granting the fees were drawn up, but not signed, for the canons were honourably reluctant to join themselves with thieves, and begged Heron to carry a message to William Carnaby that they would deliver up the monastery to the commissioners if Sir Reynold would intercede for their lives and if “they might there serve God and remain.” Heron returned to Halton, where he passed the night, but merely said that he was to receive the canons’ final answer on the morrow. During the night he secretly summoned the men of Tynedale to assemble next day. In the morning, 16 October, he went again to Hexham, and told the canons that Sir Reynold would make no terms,—he was resolved to have the heads of four canons and of four townsmen to send to the King. Whereupon the canons declared that it was better to defend their lives while they could than wilfully to kill themselves, and 196they definitely threw in their lot with the Tynedale men^[901]. It was a fatal though natural mistake on their part. The rebels’ cause in Northumberland was as much injured by the alliance with the thieves of Tynedale and Reedsdale as the King’s was in Cumberland by the loyalty of the thieves of the “Black Lands,” the valleys of the Esk and Line. When Tynedale and Reedsdale “broke” no man of substance in Northumberland cared for either church or King until order was restored. If any power could prevent the mosstroopers from spoiling and killing up to the very walls of Newcastle, that power would be welcome though it came directly from Satan, and since the government was at present opposed to the canons and their allies, it followed that all honest men in Northumberland supported the government.

As soon as he had made sure of the canons, on Monday, 16 October, John Heron rode back to Halton, and sat down cheerfully to dinner, with the remark that “It is a good sight to see a man eat when he is hungry.” He knew that he had done a good morning’s work and that in a few hours his friends of Tynedale would be there, with whose help he proposed to plunder Halton and carry off Carnaby to Sir Ingram Percy. So far his plans had been successful, but now his good luck began to leave him, for dinner was only half done when Archie Robson of Tynedale arrived and began to talk to John Robson his cousin. Heron guessed what that meant, and at once drew Carnaby aside and told him that “he could not find them of Hexham to will to make any stay, but they would do their worst,” and he therefore advised Carnaby to “defend himself as well as he would for he knew well they would be at his house straightway, and that Tynedale was part taken with them.” Carnaby reproached him for giving such short notice, saying that it was “not like a friend of him done to know such a purpose, and not to declare it till he had half dined,” but he still trusted Heron and agreed to ride with him to Chipchase, to avoid the attack of the Tynedale men, as Heron declared they were in irresistible force and were resolved to take Carnaby’s life. It was now that Heron’s luck failed altogether, for it happened that a servant of Sir Reynold Carnaby’s was riding by St John Ley near Hexham when he saw the men of Hexhamshire and Tynedale mustering there. By fair words he managed both to learn their purpose and to escape from their hands, and set off to carry the news to 197Halton, taking a short cut in order to arrive before the host. By chance he saw Heron and Carnaby as they rode towards Chipchase, and managed to tell Carnaby secretly, “That traitor thief that rideth with you hath betrayed you, and it will cost you your life yet; if ye follow counsel I shall warrant you.” Apparently their pursuers were now in sight, and by his servant’s advice Carnaby begged Heron to stop and parley with them “because he was of their acquaintance and allied amongst them,” while he himself rode on to Chipchase. Heron consented, but sent his son George to watch his victim’s movements. Carnaby however managed to get rid of George, and as soon as he was out of sight of the Tynedale men, changed his direction and rode to Langley Castle. There he was safe, as it was one of Northumberland’s castles, and apparently held by the Earl’s own men. Meanwhile Heron, seeing that his prey had escaped, rode back to Halton, which was being plundered by the Tynedale men. He told Carnaby’s son Thomas that his father commanded him to leave the house, and persuaded Carnaby’s wife to give him a casket containing her husband’s money and plate, but at the last moment, when the casket was actually in Heron’s hands, Arthur Errington, a kinsman of the Carnabys, seized it from him and galloped off, accompanied by seven Tynedale men whom he had won to his part. John Heron pursued them “and put a kerchief as a pensell upon his spear point” to lead his followers in the chase, but Errington made his escape. The next day, Tuesday 17 October, Heron returned to Halton, but found it occupied by Lewis Ogle, brother of Lord Ogle, who was an ally of the Carnabys. Heron vainly endeavoured to make him desert Halton “saying he would not tarry there till night, if he knew and perceived as much as he knew, for ten thousand pounds,” but Ogle was resolute, and at last Heron “rode home, and never came thither after.”^[902]

It is now time to look a little into the matter of dates. The canons had defied the commissioners on Thursday 28 September, but John Heron did not make his first move until Sunday 15 October, more than a fortnight later. On the very day that he rode to Halton the commons of Durham rose, and at some time during the week Heron’s brother-in-law, John Lumley, brought him a letter from them containing their articles and oath^[903]. It seems more than likely that he had been in touch with them from an earlier date, and knew what their movements were to be. The 198situation in Northumberland was favourable, as the Earl, who was the warden of the East Marches, was lying ill at Wressell Castle in Yorkshire. It is true that Sir Thomas Percy was also in Yorkshire, but Sir Ingram was at Alnwick^[904]. He had been deprived of his office of vice-warden by the Earl’s command about midsummer, but no new vice-warden had been appointed^[905], and Northumberland had made him constable of Alnwick Castle in July^[906]. In the circumstances it was natural that he should assume authority and no one seems to have known what his attitude would be. On hearing of the rising in Tynedale and Reedsdale he sent out a summons which bore a suspicious resemblance to the Lincolnshire oath: “It is ordained and appointed that all the gentlemen of Northumberland shall meet at Alnwick upon Sunday 22 October at eleven of the clock, for to take an order by all their advices and consents, what is best for them to do that may be pleasure to Almighty God and most acceptable service to the King’s highness and for the common weal of this country and the safeguard of the Marches.”^[907] The gentlemen of Northumberland, knowing nothing of the oath to God, the King and the Common Weal obeyed the summons readily. Robert Collingwood, the commissioner who was baffled at Hexham, drew up a list of agenda for the assembly in amusing contrast to the actual proceedings. It would be necessary, he wrote, to see that all the gentlemen of Northumberland and their dependants took one way in the King’s service, and to take measures against a Scots invasion. As the warden was absent and no vice-warden had been appointed, two gentlemen must be chosen to act as lieutenants of the East and Middle Marches, they must be provided with counsel and support, and all the gentlemen must wait on them as diligently as if they were each receiving a £20 fee. The two lieutenants must at once join with the keepers of Tynedale and Reedsdale to take “a substantial order” to restore peace there, “as ill disposed men rob the King’s true subjects every night.” Finally everything that was determined must be written out and signed by all the gentlemen present^[908]. As it turned out Collingwood would have been very much alarmed if his last suggestion had been enforced.

Sir Ingram Percy in the meanwhile was as politic as the King himself could have been. He did nothing to alarm the gentlemen before the meeting, and sent the Abbot of Alnwick and “other 199friends that he made” to his brother the Earl of Northumberland at Wressell with a message that he was true to the King and would repress any disturbances in Northumberland if he was restored to his office. The Earl believed his professions and made him sheriff of Northumberland, vice-warden, and lieutenant of the East Marches “with the fees accustomed.”^[909] After Sir Ingram had sent out the summons to the gentlemen, John Lumley, the messenger from Durham, arrived at Alnwick, whither he had been sent by John Heron. He brought the letter of the commons of Durham, signed by “Captain Poverty,” commanding Sir Ingram to take the oath and to remain in Northumberland as a protection against the Scots^[910]. Sir Ingram could not put forward the common excuse that he had been forced to take the oath when it was brought by a single messenger from rebels more than fifty miles away; in fact, as soon as the gentlemen had assembled on Sunday 22 October, he attempted no further concealment. Instead of entering into the business of curbing the mosstroopers, as Collingwood and the rest expected, he caused the commons’ letter and articles to be read aloud and then ordered all present to take the oath. A few ventured to protest, but as they were “enclosed in the said Castle of Alnwick” with “no remedy but all must swear or else do worse,” they all submitted and “will they or not, sworn they were.” Having now declared himself, Sir Ingram did not let the grass grow under his feet. He used all possible means to induce the gentlemen of Northumberland to join him, and devoted himself to revenging his own and his brother’s wrongs on the Carnabys. Accompanied by Sir Humphry Lisle, Robert Swinhoe and John Roddam with all the forces of Alnwick, he rode to Adderstone by Bamborough, where he believed that Sir Reynold Carnaby was hiding under the protection of his wife’s brother Thomas Forster. As a matter of fact Sir Reynold was at Chillingham Castle with Sir Robert Ellerker and others of the King’s party, and when Sir Ingram had searched Adderstone unsuccessfully, he departed swearing “By God’s heart, he would be revenged of” Sir Reynold Carnaby. Thomas Forster asked what offence Sir Reynold had done him, and Sir Ingram turned upon him,—“Sir Reynold Carnaby hath been the destruction of all our blood, for by his means the king shall be my lord’s heir; and now he thinketh a sport, and to ride up and down in the 200country, all we being sworn and he unsworn, and this I pray you show him, for surely I will be revenged of him.” On the way back to Alnwick he wished to attack Sir Thomas Grey’s house at Newstead, but his men dissuaded him. During the same expedition he took possession of Sir Reynold’s lands at North Charlton, for the use of his brother Sir Thomas Percy. He afterwards seized all Sir Reynold’s possessions in Northumberland. Edward Bradford, Sir Reynold’s steward, refused to give up his master’s rents. Sir Ingram sent out eighteen of his servants who took him by force “betwixt his parish church and his house,” and carried him to Alnwick, where he was “laid in the stocks two nights and a day and kept in hold three days longer,” because Sir Ingram would have him forswear his master. Bradford probably submitted or his imprisonment would have been longer.

Sir Ingram now sent to Lionel Gray, porter of Berwick, the other Hexham commissioner, to Sir Roger Gray and to Sir Robert Ellerker bidding them come in and take the oath. They all refused, and Lionel Gray was so closely harried that “the most part of his cattle, by driving and removing from one place to another for fear of the said Sir Ingram, was in point of utter loss and destruction.” Hearing that Carnaby, Sir Robert Ellerker and others had taken refuge in Chillingham Castle, Sir Ingram was reported to have sent to Berwick for ordnance in order that he might besiege them, but no actual siege seems ever to have been attempted^[911]. Sir Thomas Clifford, the captain of Berwick^[912], was a friend of Sir Thomas Percy, and although he was the Earl of Cumberland’s brother, he does not seem to have been so much opposed to the rebels as the rest of his family. He received messages from the Percys, and when Lionel Gray begged that his over-driven cattle might be protected in the fields of Berwick, the captain refused his permission. On St Katharine’s Day (25 November) Sir Robert Ellerker was told that the Percys were about to attack Chillingham and sent to Berwick for help. Clifford turned out the garrison on the alarm, but said that he did not believe the Percys would attack him, as he was harbouring no fugitives. He asked Sir Robert Ellerker, “Have ye any of the Carnabys in your house?” Sir Robert replied, “I believe as well yea as nay, but they or any of the King’s true subjects shall be welcome to me or to my house.” He then rode away, hoping that Clifford and his men would follow him, but 201instead of this, Clifford ordered the gates to be shut, and only ten men went with Ellerker^[913]. This was in the time of the truce, and the alarm of an attack on Chillingham came to nothing. Sir Thomas Clifford was perhaps only anxious to avoid local feuds, because he feared an attack from Scotland which Berwick was hardly able to resist, as the walls were out of repair and parts of them had fallen^[914].

For the rest of October, until the truce of Doncaster, Sir Ingram in the exercise of his office as sheriff was busy holding sheriff’s tourns at Alnwick, where he appointed Sir Humphry Lisle and others as his officers; as vice-warden he made musters and assemblies “all for the annoyance of the King’s true subjects that would not be sworn.”^[915]

Such was the state of affairs in Northumberland during the first month of the insurrection; practically the whole country, except a few castles such as Halton, Chillingham and Langley, were in the Percys’ hands, and Berwick seems to have been in no position to resist them.

It has already been pointed out that there was probably communication between the freebooters of Northumberland and the insurgents in Durham and North Yorkshire. The movement in Mashamshire and Richmond which spread to Durham began as soon as news reached Ripon of the Lincolnshire rising; the message came from Archbishop Lee, with orders to his steward, Lord Latimer, to stay his tenants, but the news had more effect than the orders^[916]. On Thursday 12 October Lord Scrope wrote to the Earl of Cumberland that the commons of Mashamshire and Nidderdale had risen the day before (Wednesday 11 October), had occupied Coverham Abbey and Middleham, and were advancing on Bolton to capture himself; he had fled into hiding and begged Cumberland to send help to his wife^[917]. Lord Latimer and Sir Christopher Danby were taken and sworn by the commons on the 14th or 15th^[918]. John Dakyn, vicar-general of the diocese of York, had hastened from the city of York to his parish of Kirkby Ravensworth in Richmond on hearing of the rising at Beverley, but no sooner had he reached Kirkby Ravensworth than he heard that Richmondshire had also risen on Friday 13 October. This news 202made him fly to a great moor, but he returned to his house and took the oath when he was told that the commons were about to destroy his goods^[919]. His parishioners then set out to seize Bowes and other gentlemen at Barnard Castle, and they ordered Dakyn to go to “Galowbaughen” in Richmond to meet the host of Mashamshire, which was advancing under Lord Latimer and Sir Christopher Danby. He obeyed their orders for fear of his life, “for ever the chancellor of Lincoln’s death moved his mind.” All that day he spent with the Mashamshire men, not daring to say anything displeasing to them. He believed that Latimer and Danby were equally afraid of their men^[920]. The brothers Robert, George and Richard Bowes and Thomas Rokeby were the captains in Barnard Castle. They were afterwards accused of not having the town and castle “in good governance”; at any rate they surrendered without a stroke on Sunday 15 October, and took over the command of the rebels^[921]. All gentlemen were forced to join, even Sir Henry Gascoigne, whose mother-in-law had just died and lay unburied, but the people willingly submitted to Robert Bowes’ authority. He ordered them to divide into parishes, and to choose four men out of each parish to command the rest. A letter was despatched to Cleveland, requiring the people there “with sore comminations” to meet the Richmondshire host at Oxneyfield by Darlington. Dakyn rejoined the Richmond host on Sunday the 15th, and there in the field one Thomlynson of Bedall, against whom he had given judgment in a matrimonial case, threatened him with a great bow, and accused him of being “a maker of the new laws and putter down of holidays” until with the help of his friends Dakyn quieted him by a gift of over forty marks^[922].

The summons, spread through the countryside, quickly took effect. On the previous Wednesday, 11 October^[923], between two and three hundred men of Mashamshire and Kirkbyshire assembled in the evening round Jervaux Abbey and clamoured for the abbot, Adam Sedbarr, to come out to them. The abbot slipped out by a back door, and took refuge on Witton Fell, with no companions but his own father and a young boy. He remained in hiding for four days, only venturing back to the abbey at night, when the commons had dispersed to their homes. But when Robert Bowes’ summons was 203received on Sunday 15 October, the rebels returned to Jervaux and declared that they would burn it down if the abbot were not delivered up to them for forbidding his tenants to join them. The terrified monks sent a messenger to the fell, who found the abbot “in a great crag” and told him of the commons’ threats, saying that all the brethren cried “Wo” by him. This message caused him to return, though the risk was great, and his friends had difficulty in saving him from the commons, who nearly tore him in pieces, crying “Down with the traitor”! and “Whoreson traitor, where hast thou been?” “Get a block to strike off his head upon.” No gentlemen were with them; they had leaders chosen from among themselves, of whom the abbot names Stavely, Middleton, Leonard Burgh and Aslaby. They forced the abbot to take the oath, and carried him off with them, mounted on a barebacked horse, to the meeting at Oxneyfield on Monday 16 October^[924]. Assembled there were Bowes with the Richmondshire men, Lord Latimer and Sir Christopher Danby with Mashamshire, and the men of Jervaux with the abbot. Bowes was, as usual, obliged to “stay old grudges” among his followers, in order to induce them to act together. They intended to compel all priests who were “young and able” to join them, and the priests themselves were quite willing in many cases^[925]. The chantry priest of Lartington and the parish priest of Romaldkirk were particularly active^[926]. Dakyn, however, persuaded Bowes to excuse them all in consideration of their vows, and afterwards ventured to rebuke the cantarist, when he came to his house to demand money, saying that his was not the office of a priest^[927].

From Oxneyfield the host advanced to Bishop Auckland on Tuesday 17 October with the object of capturing the Bishop of Durham there. But the bishop had been warned and had fled at midnight^[928]. He made his way to his own castle of Norham^[929], but even there he seems to have found some difficulty in gaining admittance, for William Franklin, Archdeacon of Durham, was afterwards praised for his “service in taking Norham Castle.” Perhaps this means that at the outbreak of the insurrection he had occupied the castle and prepared to defend it. Franklin afterwards endeavoured to go south, but was stopped by Darcy^[930]. Thomas Parry, one of the 204commissioners^[931] for suppressing monasteries was more fortunate. He fled to Norfolk and kept up communications with Franklin, urging him to try to capture Aske^[932]. In the end Franklin escaped and went to the King^[933]. The Bishop of Durham remained at Norham for several months^[934]. For his desertion the commons spoiled his palace at Bishop Auckland “contrary to their own proclamation.”^[935] The plundering perhaps took place when Bowes had gone to Brancepeth to take the Earl of Westmorland^[936]. Westmorland did not join the rebels himself, but he took the oath and sent them a friendly answer^[937]. What seems nowadays more extraordinary is that he allowed his son, a boy not much over 13 years, to ride with the rebels^[938]. There is nothing to indicate that young Lord Neville was captured or that his presence in the Pilgrim host caused any alarm to his parents.

Sir Thomas Hilton, the sheriff of Durham, was probably at Bishop Auckland with the bishop. On Monday, after the bishop’s flight, he sent news of the rising to his cousin John Lord Lumley, who was hunting the hare at his manor of the Isle^[939]. On receiving the warning that “as he regarded his honour and safeguard of his substance that he should remove and get him to some sure place for fear of the commons lest he should be taken of them,” he packed up his plate and jewels and set out to deposit them in the Maison Dieu at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which was the strongest house he knew. Arriving at Lumley Castle that night, he stopped to rest there, but sent on his son George with the valuables to place them in safety at Newcastle without delay. On Tuesday 17 October Lord Lumley joined his son at Newcastle, and on Wednesday the 18th Sir Thomas Hilton arrived there and persuaded him to leave the town by telling him that the townsfolk would rise if the commons came that way. Hilton and Lumley went to Hilton Castle, and George Lumley returned to the Isle^[940], which shows that he was not at heart opposed to the rebels, as they were in possession of all that district, and mustered that day at Spennymoor^[941], some five or six miles away. No sooner had George Lumley arrived than “certain soldiers out of Richmondshire” came 205to summon him to Lord Latimer’s muster, under pain of burning the house. He accompanied them back to Auckland, when he found, in addition to Lord Latimer and his men, Sir James Strangways with a thousand men, young Bowes with a thousand more, Sir Ralph Bulmer and another knight (Sir Christopher Danby?) each with a company. Lord Latimer administered the oath to him and asked him where his father was. Lumley replied “feignedly” that he was in Northumberland, whereupon Latimer bade him send word that if Lord Lumley did not “come in” the rebels would spoil his house. They allowed him to return to the Isle, where he received a message from his wife that his own house at Thweng was in danger. Next day, Thursday 19 October, he set out for Yorkshire, remained two days at Thweng, and then led his tenants to York^[942].

George Lumley did not see his father again until they met “on the heath before Doncaster,” and he denied most emphatically that he had received any message from him or knew anything of his movements in the interval. His reticence is highly honourable in a son, but very exasperating to an historian, for very little is known of the rising in the Bishopric until on Friday 20 October the Lords Neville, Latimer and Lumley rode into York at the head of 10,000 men, bearing before them the banner of St Cuthbert. It seems probable that as soon as they were satisfied as to the disposition of the citizens of Newcastle, Lumley and Hilton set out and raised Durham without even going through the formality of being taken by the commons. It would be extremely interesting to know how they obtained possession of St Cuthbert’s banner, which was in the charge of the feretrar of Durham Cathedral. The monks seem to have given it up willingly, as they paid sixteen pence to Thomas Merlay the standard bearer, but somehow or other it was injured and five shillings were spent on its repairs^[943]. The bishop’s chancery in Durham was spoiled by the commons^[944]. Sir Francis Bigod endeavoured to escape from Mulgrave to London by sea, but his ship was driven back up the coast of Durham and he landed at Hartlepool. He was passing the night at the house of a former mayor of the town when he was warned that the commons were coming to take him and fled back to his ship. 206Keeping now the waters and now the woods he returned to Mulgrave and was captured by the commons, who took him to York^[945].

The date of these events is uncertain, but Hilton and Lumley must have joined Latimer not later than Thursday 19 October. Meanwhile at Spennymoor on Wednesday 18 October the host had been divided into two parts, the one to advance to York, the other to Skipton. Dakyn and two other aged gentlemen were sent to Jervaux to despatch the posts with letters from host to host^[946], and the Abbot of Jervaux was permitted to return home with them. His attitude towards the rising seems to have altered a good deal now that he had discovered it was not a mere riot among the peasants of his own neighbourhood. At Auckland he was attended by his chaplain with a bow and sheaf of arrows, and was heard to say “The King doth cry eighteen pence a day. And I trust we shall have as many men for eight pence a day.”^[947]

The great fortress of Newcastle could play a decisive part in the success or failure of any northern rising. As has been seen, Lumley and Hilton endeavoured to make sure of it before setting out for York. The mayor and corporation were loyal to the King, and had begun to provision the town and to lay guns on the walls, but they represented only a narrow oligarchy of wealthy merchants who earlier in Henry’s reign had won a victory in the Court of Star Chamber over the artisan gilds of the town^[948]. The defeated party naturally inclined to the insurgents. Sir Thomas Hilton sent two servants about the town to discover the attitude of the common people, and their report was that no resistance would be made to the rebels. When the guns were laid on the walls the people said “that they might lay the guns where they would but they would turn them when the commons came whither they would.”^[949] Thus reassured the rebel leaders set out on their march, but Robert Brandling the mayor was a politic man, who set himself to conciliate the commons. His exertions were encouraged by the arrival of William Blytheman, one of Cromwell’s commissioners for the suppression of monasteries, who had fled from York to Newcastle. On his way through Richmondshire he had been helped by Dakyn, much to the indignation of the commons^[950]. When he reached Newcastle 207safely he sent in an enthusiastic report of Brandling’s proceedings^[951]. Sadler wrote in a subsequent letter that the mayor “did so fully reconcile them (the commons) and so handle them that, in fine, they were determined to live and die with the mayor and his brethren in the defence and keeping of the town to the King’s use against all his enemies and rebels.”^[952] One of the mayor’s measures of conciliation was to punish the only heretic in the town, Roger Dachant^[953], who had been obliged to abjure his opinions before the Bishop of Durham on 24 November 1531^[954]. Among other heresies he held that every priest might be and ought to be married and that monasteries ought to be pulled down. This view had commended him to the royal visitors, and he was Blytheman’s friend, so that probably his punishment was not very severe.

To sum up, the whole of the county of Durham, including the fortresses of Barnard Castle, Brancepeth, and Durham itself, was in the hands of the commons, but Newcastle, after wavering, had returned to its loyalty.

It is now time to follow out the history of the siege of Skipton Castle, to which half the Durham host were despatched on 19 October. The dales of Yorkshire had never been really settled since the Craven riots of 1535^[955]. Dent, Sedbergh and Wensleydale were the regions where hatred of the government was strongest. About the middle of September William Breyar the sanctuary man arrived at Dent wearing the livery of the Queen’s sumpter men. A smith, seeing his coat, said “Thy master is a thief, for he pulleth down all our churches in the country.” The bystanders objected to the smith’s disloyalty and said: “It is not the King’s deed, but the deed of Cromwell, and if we had him here we would crum him and crum him that he was never so crummed, and if thy master were here we would new crown him.” Breyar fled for his life, and complained to the magistrates of Kirkby Lonsdale, who replied “Alas, man! what didst thou there? for they of Dent and of three other parishes thereabouts were sworn on Monday last past;” but they did not say to whom they were sworn, nor what the oath was. About a week later Breyar heard that the insurrection in Lincolnshire had just broken out^[956]. Darcy wrote from Templehurst on Friday 6 October to warn the King and the Earl of Cumberland of stirrings in the dales^[957], but Cumberland did not take the matter seriously. 208He was at Skipton Castle preparing to advance against Hexham Priory^[958], and was sending his son Lord Clifford to join Shrewsbury on his march to Lincoln. He therefore contented himself by writing on the 8th to Sir James Metcalf and other local gentlemen to keep order in the dales^[959]. On the evening of Tuesday 10 October Christopher Aske brought him the news of the Beverley rising^[960], and on the 12th came Scrope’s letter about the rising of Masham and Nidderdale^[961]. On the same day the Earl wrote to Henry to explain his delay in setting out for Hexham^[962]. The King sent another peremptory command that he should go to Northumberland in spite of the unsettled state of Yorkshire^[963], and on Monday 16 October he set out for Carlisle on his way northward^[964]. He had scarcely started when he was forced to retreat into Skipton Castle again, for on Tuesday the 17th Darcy wrote from Pontefract to the King that “My lord of Cumberland on his way to Hexham returned for safety to Skipton Castle.” He added that Lord Scrope was with the Earl^[965], but this was a mistake. On the same day Sir Brian Hastings told Shrewsbury that Scrope had been taken, and that next day the rebels would muster at Barnsdale and Barnsley^[966].

Up to this point the rising had shown all the features of an agricultural riot such as had occurred in Craven the year before. The commons wandered about the county in aimless bands, returning home at night. They had no particular respect for the church, as their treatment of the Abbot of Jervaux showed, and they directed their operations against unpopular landlords. When the abbot was in the Tower he told Cromwell, “My Lord, ye be greatly deceived thinking that the monks and canons were the chief doers of this insurrection, for there were other of more reputation.” He believed that one of the chief grievances was the lordship of Middleham, for the commons of Piercebridge said they would make new lords of Middleham and restore divers who were put from their offices by wrong, and the commons of Masham used similar language^[967]. He had also heard a serving-man say that the commons had offered to put his master in possession of Sheriffhutton Castle. The abbot, however, did not know the names of either the master or the man. He believed that if he told all he knew the King might pardon him, 209but yet it would cost him his life if it were known that he had spoken. Cromwell promised that his revelations should be concealed, and commanded that he should write down what he knew^[968], but nothing more remains about his secrets. In this district therefore the rising appeared to men of property as a peasant revolt which threatened their lives and lands, and must be put down as quickly as possible.

The names of the leaders at the siege of Skipton Castle show the character of the movement,—they were “Merlione,” evidently a peasant who took the name from the prophecies, and John Norton of Norton Conyers, with his two sons Richard and Thomas^[969], who were captains in the Rising of the North thirty-three years later^[970]. John Norton took up arms not only in defence of his religious principles, but also to avenge the private wrongs that he had suffered at the hands of the Earl of Cumberland in the feud which has already been described^[971]. When the Earl of Cumberland retreated to Skipton Castle on Tuesday 17 October, the forces which he had collected dispersed to save their houses, and only about eighty men remained with him. From these Christopher Aske “tried out” forty young men, who were sufficient to defend the whole castle except the barmkyn^[972].

Meanwhile the commons at Skipton established communications with the main body at York, and on the church doors of Swaledale, Wensleydale and elsewhere was posted Aske’s summons to those who would rescue the commonwealth from the heresies into which it was falling^[973]. The summons contained no expressions of hostility to the King, and it was now that some of the gentlemen began to join the commons. Sir Stephen Hamerton was told that there was such a bill on Giggleswick church door, probably on Wednesday 18 October. On Thursday he went to see it, but the commons had taken it down and gone to a muster at Neales Yng. Sir Stephen was warned by some wives as he returned from hunting that the commons were searching for him, and he was presently surrounded by three hundred men “who said he had ruled them, but now they would rule him.” Their leaders, Jakes and Fawcett, administered the oath to him, and he was sent with eight others to Skipton Castle to request Cumberland to join them. The Earl asked them 210why they rose, and they replied that it was for fear of Bishopdale, Wensleydale and the other wild regions. He promised to see them recompensed if they were robbed, but they answered, “Nay, my lord, but this will not serve us.” The Earl however was firm, and sent back the message: “I defy you, and do your worst, for I will not meddle with you.”

On Saturday 21 October Hammerton and his companions returned to Monubent, the appointed rendezvous, where they were kept waiting, as the commons had gone to take Nicholas Tempest, the brother of Sir Richard Tempest^[974]. His home was at Bashall in Bolland and he himself had gone into hiding, but the commons plundered his goods and seized his son John, a child. They threatened to strike off the boy’s head if his father would not join them, whereupon Tempest returned and took the oath^[975]; after this he was always earnest for the commons’ cause^[976]. On hearing Cumberland’s answer the commons were very angry, “and swore they would have my lord of Cumberland or die,” but they received letters from Sawley Abbey asking for help against the Earl of Derby, and in consequence set out thither on Sunday, 22 October, taking no further part in the attack on Skipton^[977]. Nevertheless the besiegers at this time were reinforced by half the forces of Richmond and Durham^[978]. After two or three days’ siege, finding the castle impregnable without ordnance, the commons resolved to capture Elinor Lady Clifford, the daughter of the Duke of Suffolk and of the King’s sister Mary, together with Lady Clifford’s young son and the Earl’s two daughters, who were all staying at Bolton Priory. The besiegers threatened to lead them before the host at the assault next day, and if it was unsuccessful, “to violate and enforce them with knaves unto my Lord’s great discomfort.” But before the commons could secure the ladies, Christopher Aske, with the help only of the vicar of Skipton, a groom and a boy, contrived to bring them by night over the moors from Bolton and right through the rebel host into the castle without being detected^[979]. Fearing for their safety, he then wrote Robert Aske “an unkind letter,” telling him that the Earl would never yield while he lived, and that if Robert assaulted the castle it “should be a double death, once to see the said Earl his master slain, and the ladies then being within the castle, which 211should be death also to them.” Robert replied in a “like letter of unkindness,” saying that he would not himself assault the castle but that the Earl’s enemies would certainly take it if he did not yield. He was led to believe this by a letter from the Duke of Suffolk to the Earl which he had intercepted, but he found out afterwards that this letter referred to Carlisle and not to Skipton^[980]. The siege lasted for about ten days, but the castle was not taken. While it was in progress the commons robbed the Earl’s parks, and pulled down his houses at Bardon and Carleton, “which were so strong as to take three days in breaking.”^[981]

Communications were maintained between the besiegers and the other bodies of the rebels by Dakyn and the elderly gentlemen who had been placed for that purpose at Jervaux Abbey. The postmasters received some unsigned letters from Sir Christopher Danby, which they requested him to sign, and others from William Conyers, and on one occasion Dakyn wrote to the Abbot of Fountains for post-horses. Copies were taken of all the letters which passed through their hands, but the copies were left at the abbey and probably destroyed. One of the gentlemen, Mr Siggiswick, being aged and sick, returned home, and his place was taken by another aged man, Mr Catherick^[982]. When the two hosts joined at Pontefract, Dakyn and the others returned home^[983], but the siege of Skipton lasted until Norton was summoned to take part in the first conference at Doncaster^[984]. As soon as the truce was proclaimed Aske wrote to the commons forbidding them to molest the Earl until the King’s answer was received, and to the Earl begging him to observe the truce. His orders were obeyed, although the commons maintained a very hostile attitude^[985].

The only other stronghold in Yorkshire which held out for the King was Scarborough Castle. It was a royal castle, and the constable was Sir Ralph Evers^[986] the younger, afterwards Ralph first lord Evers. After a career of some distinction on the border he was killed at the battle of Ancrum Moor 1545, where it was said that Annan, the general of the Scots, on seeing his body, burst into tears exclaiming, “God have mercy on him, for he was a fell cruel man, and over cruel. And welaway that ever such slaughter and bloodshed 212should be among Christian men.”^[987] Evers has even his modest niche in literature, for the moody Baron of Smailholm

“... came not from where Ancrum Moor,

Ran red with English blood;

Where the Douglas true and the bold Buccleuch,

’Gainst keen Lord Evers stood.”^[988]

Like most keepers of royal castles, he made his profit out of his charge. He was accused of having taken the lead roofs off the towers and turrets to make into brewing vessels for himself, and to exchange for French wines^[989]. But in spite of these peccadillos he was true to his post, and on 17 October Darcy reported that Scarborough was besieged by the commons^[990]. Some of Archbishop Lee’s servants, flying thither from York, were captured by the besiegers, but rescued and brought into the castle by Sir Ralph^[991]. The commons had seized the town^[992], and it was only the castle which held out.

Very little is known about this early stage of the siege, but it seems to have been closely maintained. There was afterwards a story that Sir Ralph and his company had “no sustenance but bread and water for the space of twenty days,”^[993] and his appeals for help to the royal generals show that he was hard pressed^[994]. The rebels had some ordnance, which they had probably taken from ships in the harbour, and they knew how to use it, for Sir Ralph reported “of late part of the wall and the ground of Scarborough Castle is shot down in the outer ward betwixt the gatehouse and the castle.”^[995] Nevertheless the rebels were baffled and failed to take the castle.

The sieges of Skipton and Scarborough occupied the men of the northern dales so completely that their contingent had not reached Pontefract on 21 October. Aske reckoned that they would be twelve thousand men, armed and mounted, under the leadership of Lord Scrope, Sir Christopher Danby, Sir William Mallory, the Nortons, the Markenfields and others^[996].

In contrast to the rising in the Dales, the insurrection in Lancashire seems to have been caused chiefly by discontent at the royal supremacy and the suppression of the monasteries.

213The principal leader was one Atkinson, probably the same John Atkinson alias Brotton who had escaped after preventing the vicar of Gisburn from reading the Act of Supremacy in the parish church on 11 July 1535^[997]. The centre of the insurrection was St Mary’s Abbey, Sawley^[998], a monastery which was beloved by the commons, “being the charitable relief of those parts, and standing in a mountain country and amongst three forests.”^[999] It contained an abbot and twenty-one monks and, as one of the lesser monasteries, had been dissolved by the commissioners; but on Thursday 12 October the commons reinstated the brethren^[1000], who naturally threw themselves heart and soul into the pilgrims’ cause. One of them probably composed the famous song of the Pilgrimage:

“Christ Crucified,

For thy wounds wide,

Us commons guide,

That pilgrims be.”^[1001]

Among their papers are notes for a sermon maintaining that it is lawful for a man to fight for the Faith and to resent injuries done to God and his neighbours^[1002].

In several other places the commissioners for the suppression of the monasteries encountered opposition. The Priory of Conishead had been threatened in 1525 when Wolsey dissolved a few of the smaller monasteries, but it was spared at the intercession of the Duke of Suffolk, who reported it to be “a great help to the people.”^[1003] On Monday 16 October 1536, the prior wrote to William Collins, bailiff of Kendal, begging him to make proclamation that help should be sent to the priory, or else all they had would be taken from them^[1004]. About this time or a little earlier, in an undated letter, news was sent to Darcy that “this week past Manchester College should have been pulled down, and there would have been a rising, but the commissioners recoiled.”^[1005]

In the neighbouring county of Cheshire the commissioners were actively resisted. The Abbot of Norton had been deposed and imprisoned, apparently on a charge of treason^[1006]. A servant of Cromwell 214was put in his place to effect the surrender of the monastery, which took place at the beginning of October 1536. On Sunday 8 October when the commissioners had packed up the jewels and movable property, and were ready to leave, they were attacked by the former abbot, who had escaped from prison, and was now at the head of two or three hundred country people. The commissioners fled, and took refuge in a tower, but they contrived to send a message to the sheriff, who set out at once, and came upon the abbot and his followers at 2 o’clock in the morning, feasting on an ox and other victuals by the light of great fires which were burning within and without the monastery. They were taken by surprise and could make no effective resistance. The abbot and three of his canons were captured, but most of his followers fled under cover of the darkness. The sheriff reported that the abbot was expecting reinforcements and “it was thought if it had not been quickly handled the matter would have grown to further inconvenience.” As it was, the King’s farmer was restored, and the abbot and canons were imprisoned in Halton Castle. The King sent orders for their execution, but they were not carried out at once, and on 30 November the abbot was still living. His fate is uncertain, but he was taken to Chester Castle for safer keeping during the insurrection, and it is unlikely that he escaped^[1007].

The commons of Lancashire expressed sympathy with the Lincolnshire rebels, and there was a widespread belief that the young Earl of Derby inclined to the same side. His servants were so bitter against Cromwell that a spy in the household wrote “or your lordship (Cromwell) should be there as they would have you to be I had liefer to be in Jerusalem to come home upon my bare feet.”^[1008]

Thomas Stanley, a priest who was related to Derby, corresponded with Lord Darcy, and used all his influence to persuade the Earl to join the rebels^[1009]. For a time it was believed that he had been successful. Aske showed Bigod a letter from the Earl, and said that he would be with them in time of need. Afterwards a servant of Bigod’s who was sent with a letter to Derby, told him that in the rebel host he was “cried traitor.” The Earl replied that “there was no man in England save the King who should say such a thing of him but he would lay his sword on his face,” and he trusted the King would let him “boulte out” the occasion of this 215slander^[1010]. Perhaps his indignation was so great because there were some grounds for the rebels’ confidence in his sympathy. Nicholas Tempest had heard that Derby “had written such a letter to the lord Darcy that he knew the said lord of Derby would do little in the matter [on behalf of the King] when it should come to the point.” He believed that the gentlemen who trusted to Derby to protect them against the rebels would find themselves deceived in him^[1011]. It was said that Aske called him “false flattering boy” who ran away from the commons^[1012], for when it came to the point he chose to serve the King.

On Tuesday 10 October Derby received a summons to prepare his men in case the rebellion should spread from Lincolnshire into those parts^[1013]. The monks of Sawley were restored on the 12th, and on the 19th, Thursday, news of this having reached the King, further orders were sent to Derby, that instead of joining Shrewsbury on his advance northwards, as had been intended, he must suppress the rising in Lancashire, send up the ringleaders and hang the brethren in their monks’ apparel. A commission under the Privy Seal was sent to him to authorise his proceedings^[1014]. He was given authority over all Lancashire, Cheshire, North Wales and Staffordshire, excepting the parts already committed to Shrewsbury. This liberal commission delighted Derby so much that his previous inclination was overcome and he resolved to oppose the rebels. He showed the commission to Thomas Stanley, saying that no ancestor of his had ever had the like, to which Stanley retorted that “no more should he neither have had” if it had not been to support Cromwell. A heated argument followed, but Derby was now quite determined on his course^[1015]. The King’s judicious display of confidence had made an ally of a man who might have been a most dangerous enemy. Derby might have avenged his ancestor Sir William Stanley by overmatching Henry VIII if he had thrown his powerful influence into the scale against the King. But on the other hand, the Earl’s love of ruling and his commanding position as by far the most important man among the Pilgrims would have made it necessary for them to acknowledge him their leader, if he had joined them, and as he was not very wise 216it may be doubted whether he had sufficient tact and ability for the position. He would have been but a doubtful acquisition if he had introduced fresh divisions into their council. This, however, is only speculation, as Derby prepared to fight for the King. Nevertheless the commons of Lancashire were wholly in favour of the rebels, and Stanley believed that if one quarter rose the rest would. He reported to Darcy that Derby and Lord Monteagle his cousin would not be able to set out before the following Wednesday, 25 October^[1016], and meanwhile the commons were rising in response to a summons from “Mr Captain” (Aske or Atkinson?). An example of this summons is preserved in an unsigned letter to “Cousin Townley.” Its date seems to be Saturday 14 October. The writer had received a letter from “Mr Captain in this our Pilgrimage of Grace,” containing the order “that on sight thereof ye fail not with all your company to be on (blank) Thewseday (Tuesday 17th?) next by (blank) of the clock in all your best array, as ye will avoid displeasure of the contrary doing.” The writer was sure that his cousin would be glad to hear this. He had sent orders to the commons of Lancaster side to take the gentlemen who were favourable to the Pilgrimage, and was sorry that “Cousin Townley’s” brother had not taken the oath, as he was inclined to it at one time^[1017]. Sir John Townley and his brother, who was also called John, are afterwards mentioned as being active on behalf of the commons^[1018].

Such a summons was brought by George Willen and William Gaunt from Dent to Kendal on Saturday 14 October. The men from Dent had come, as they said, to ask Sir James Leyborne what they should do about the summons, which they had received from Richmondshire. All the advice they received from Leyborne the steward and William Collins the bailiff was “not to meddle.” Next day (Sunday 15 October) the commons under the leadership of Tom Dockwray and Brian Jobson assembled at daybreak in the North Street of Kendal, and took all the chief men of the town, rousing them from their beds and making them swear to be true to God, the King and their ancient laudable customs. “Mr Leyborne” had fled, but his friends promised that he would do as the other gentlemen did, and his brother Nicholas “sealed to a book which was read concerning their customs” in his name. The complaint that their ancient customs were being violated was the 217characteristic grievance of Cumberland and Westmorland, and will be discussed more fully hereafter. Beyond visiting Mr Leyborne’s house again on Friday 20 October the commons of Kendal did not do much until on Saturday 21 October they received a summons from the men of Dent to muster with them on Monday 23 October at ten o’clock on Ennesmore. Here a local quarrel broke out, for the Kendal men answered that they “would have nought to do” with Dent. The reply of the latter was that if Kendal did not attend the muster, the town should be spoiled by ten thousand men. For a moment the citizens of Kendal thought of resistance, but in the end some five hundred of them went to Ennesmore. There they found that the captains were Atkinson, James Cowper, John Middleton, John Hebyllthwayte of Sedbergh, James Bushell of Middleton and the vicar of Clapham, who “was the common swearer and counsellor in all that business and persuaded the people that they should go to heaven if they died in that quarrel.” The men of Kendal told the captains that they were sworn, but that their gentlemen would not come in, to which the others answered, “If ye cannot rule them, we shall rule them.” A muster was appointed at Kendal next day at 8 a.m., when they would have spoiled Mr Leyborne’s house but for the bad weather. On Friday 27 October Leyborne and the other gentlemen at last came in and were sworn at Kendal Tollbooth, and on Saturday 28 October they mustered on Kelet Moor and marched to Lancaster^[1019].

It was this rising which prevented Derby from marching on Sawley when he received the King’s first orders, dated 19 October^[1020]. The delay annoyed Henry so much that on the 28th he wrote repeating his instructions^[1021], but Derby was doing his best. He occupied Preston in order to lie within striking distance of both the rebel hosts, the one lying near Kendal, which was said to number five or six thousand men, but was probably under three thousand, and the other defending Sawley Abbey. His attitude alarmed the monks of Sawley, who sent into Yorkshire for help on Saturday 21 October^[1022], but his attention was at first occupied by the Kendal rising. Many fugitives hurried to his protection, among the first being the abbot and deputy steward of Furness, who came by water to Lathom before the Earl occupied Preston^[1023]. From Lathom 218the abbot wrote to his monastery that he had taken a way to be sure both from King and commons^[1024], and while he remained with Derby the monks levied men for the rebels and sent them money, telling their recruits “Now must they stick to it or else never, for if they sit down both you and Holy Church is undone; and if they lack company we will go with them and live and die with them to defend their most godly pilgrimage.” They gave out that the King was not right heir to the crown because his father came in by the sword, and they maintained the papal authority so earnestly that some of their tenants were willing to wager that the new laws would be annulled in three years. Four of the monks of Sawley had been sent to Furness, and three of them, who had capacities^[1025], returned to Sawley when the commons restored it^[1026].

The Prior of Cartmell, who had been restored against his will, fled to the Earl at Preston, where he was joined by Lord Monteagle and Sir Marmaduke Tunstall, whose houses lay between Lancashire and Westmorland in the district where the rising took place^[1027]. Sir Robert Bellingham, Aske’s brother-in-law, and other gentlemen were taken and sworn by the commons but afterwards escaped to Preston. It must have been for this desertion that the commons threatened to spoil the house of Aske’s sister Margaret, Sir Robert’s wife, but Aske prevented them from doing so^[1028].

Atkinson entered Lancaster at the head of the host from Dent and Kendal on Saturday 28 October^[1029]. He administered the oath to the mayor and all the burgesses, but the mayor escaped to his master the Earl of Derby. The commons threatened to plunder his house if he did not return, and Derby sent two of his servants to Atkinson to explain that he was detaining the mayor, and to order the commons to depart in the King’s name. Atkinson declared that as the mayor would not come, his friends, who had been his sureties “were forfeitures,” and he gave the servants a list of their names. As for the rest of the message, the commons had a pilgrimage for the commonwealth to do, which they would accomplish or die. The servants replied that if twelve of their chiefs would sign a promise to fight on Bentham Moor, the Earl would undertake to meet them there and determine the quarrel by battle. Atkinson answered that they would not fight unless the Earl hindered their pilgrimage, or attempted to join the Lord Lieutenant. If they had 219agreed to fight, Derby had resolved to wait for help from Cheshire, as he could not trust his men^[1030]. It was probably the report of these messengers which convinced him that the rebels at Lancaster were not very formidable, and he therefore turned his attention to Sawley. It was known in Lancaster on the 28th that the reinforcements from Yorkshire had arrived there^[1031].

After the resolution at Monubent on Saturday 21 October Sir Stephen Hamerton had gone to Colne and Burnley, marching down one bank of the Ribble, and Nicholas Tempest had gone to Whalley, marching down the other bank. The latter reached Whalley on Monday 23 October. For more than two hours the monks refused to admit him and his three or four hundred men, but at last they opened their doors for fear of burning. Tempest administered the oath to the abbot and eight of the brethren. Sir Stephen Hamerton and his men arrived the same night and the two leaders recounted their experiences to each other^[1032].

Hearing that Derby was doing his best to raise forces against them, they sent to Walter Strickland to come to their aid, but received no reply^[1033]. Then definite news was brought that Derby intended to set out from Preston on Monday 30 October and would spend that night with his forces at Whalley Abbey, which was some four miles from Sawley. The rebels at once occupied a hill by the abbey, prepared to fall on Derby, who did not know of their movements^[1034]. An encounter between the rebels and Derby’s forces seemed inevitable, and the situation was on the whole in favour of the former. It is true that Derby had levied over eight thousand men, but their loyalty was doubtful^[1035]; the Pilgrims at Sawley, unknown to Derby, had occupied a strong position, and those at Lancaster were preparing to take him in the rear^[1036]. Derby himself admitted that the roads were very difficult and that there would have been a great fray “though no doubt the traitors would have been overthrown.”^[1037] Just at this critical moment, at nine o’clock in the morning on Monday 30 October, Berwick Herald-at-Arms rode into Preston and delivered to the Earl a letter from Shrewsbury and the other lords, informing him of the first appointment at Doncaster, and directing 220him to “sparple his force and do no hurt.”^[1038] After a formal consultation with the gentlemen present, he disbanded his men and returned to Lathom, probably with a very thankful heart^[1039]. The same news had reached Whalley in a letter from Aske, forbidding the Pilgrims to meddle with Derby even if he attacked them, and directing them to withdraw into the mountains, unless he (Derby) “raised fire,” in which case they must send by post to Aske. Hearing that the Earl had withdrawn, they also broke up their forces, and “kept every man his own house, ready to be up and come together at an hour’s warning.”^[1040]

From Lancashire^[1041] we turn to Cumberland and Westmorland, where there had been considerably more enclosing of common land by the landlords than in the other counties. This was the principal grievance of the commons in those parts. On 17 August 1536 Sir Thomas Wharton reported to Cromwell that there had been divers riots in Cumberland, probably against the enclosures, although one riot was traced to the Bishop of Carlisle^[1042], and was most likely a private feud.

On Sunday 15 October the curate of Kirkby Stephen did not “bid St Luke’s day (Wednesday 18 October) as a holyday,” which exasperated his parishioners so much that they threatened to kill him; to pacify them he was forced to announce the holiday as usual^[1043]. Probably it was on the same day that Robert Thompson, vicar of Brough-under-Stainmore, received a letter from the commons of Richmondshire which he read aloud to his parishioners, perhaps in the parish church. The contents of the letter ran: “Wellbeloved brethren in God, we greet you well, signifying unto you that we your brethren in Christ have assembled us together and put us in readiness for the maintenance of the faith of God, His laws and His Church, and where abbeys was suppressed we have restored them again and put the religious men into their houses: wherefore we exhort you to do the same.”^[1044] This letter seems to have been signed “Captain Poverty,” as was the one sent to Sir Ingram Percy^[1045].

221Next day the men of Kirkby Stephen held a muster on Sandforth Moor in response to the summons from Richmond, and chose as their captains Robert Pullen, Nicholas Musgrave, Christopher Blenkinsop and Robert Hilton. Vicar Thompson went to Penrith that night, to escape from the commons as he said, but it seems more likely that his object was to spread the news of the rising. He rejoined the muster next day, Tuesday 17 October, when the commons went to take Sir Thomas Wharton. As he had fled, they captured his eldest son instead. On Wednesday 18 October they went to Lamerside Hall, believing that Sir Thomas and other gentlemen had taken refuge there, but they found only servants. Pullen then issued an order that the gentlemen should come in by a certain day or their houses would be plundered, and appointed men bound by oath to collect the goods which the captains declared forfeit. The leaders agreed that next day, Thursday 19 October, Pullen and his men should march down one side of the Eden and Musgrave with his down the other. Pullen’s company set out and arrived at Penrith the same day, but Musgrave’s band spent the night at Lowther, where they had in vain hoped to take Sir John Lowther. Penrith had already risen in response to the summons from Richmondshire, which had probably been brought by Thompson. Four captains had been chosen, Anthony Hutton, John Beck, Gilbert Whelpdale or Whelton, and Thomas Burbeck, who took the names of Charity, Faith, Poverty and Pity. Gilbert Whelpdale, Captain Poverty, was Robert Thompson’s brother-in-law, and appointed him his chaplain and secretary. Pullen’s company spent Thursday night in Penrith and on Friday 20 October set out again. Thompson accompanied them as far as Eamont Bridge, where the oath was administered to Dudley and other gentlemen, but he turned back to Penrith at the request of the commons there, in order that he might help them with his counsel. On the same day they held a muster on Penrith Fell, where Thompson and the captains organised their forces as well as they could. “Sir” Edward Perith, who must have been a priest, was appointed the crossbearer, to carry the cross before the host. George Corney, another priest, wrote letters to the neighbouring gentlemen at the dictation of the captains, and Thompson taught Thomas Berwick, the town-crier, a proclamation to be uttered before every meeting “to the effect that, as the rulers did not defend them from thieves and Scots, they had chosen the four captains, who commanded all to live in peace and to say five aves, five paters and a creed.” The letters were sent to Sir 222Edward Musgrave, who came in and took the oath with all the parish of Edenhall and the country round Penrith. Another muster was held on Saturday 21 October, when the commons beyond Eden were sworn, and a meeting was appointed on Monday 23 October at Cartlogan Thorns. On Monday the commons of Caldbeck, Greystoke, Hutton, Shewlton and Sowerby rose and came to Cartlogan Thorns, bringing with them Bernard Towneley, the chancellor of the diocese, Richard Bewley, Richard Vachell and other gentlemen. Sir John Lowther also came to the meeting, “to summon certain men of Sowerby to keep the day of march,” i.e. the day appointed for a meeting with the Scots warden. Sir John’s attitude is doubtful; he does not seem to have been brought in by force, and the commons looked upon him as their friend^[1046].

The next muster was appointed to be held on Wednesday 25 October at Kilwatling How^[1047]. A new actor now comes on the scene—Abbot Carter of Holm Cultram. The Priory of Carlisle and the Abbey of Holm Cultram were the only two monasteries in Cumberland wealthy enough to escape the Act of Suppression. There had been several scandals in connection with Holm Cultram in recent years, and the abbot seems to have realised from the first that without a revolution his house was doomed^[1048]. Consequently when the news of the rising reached him he sent orders to all his tenants to attend the muster at Kilwatling How under pain of hanging^[1049].

There on Wednesday 25 October the gentlemen and commons of the neighbourhood were sworn, and four clergymen, the parson of Melmerby, Dr Towneley, the vicar of Sowerby and the vicar of Edenhall, were appointed Chaplains of Poverty to instruct the commons in the Faith, a lesson which was much needed, as those who attended the muster announced that if the other clergymen of the district did not come in they would strike off the heads of those already in their hands, and set Towneley’s head on the highest tree of the diocese^[1050].

On Wednesday and Thursday a picturesque ceremony took place in Penrith chapel, when the four captains followed Thompson in procession round the building with their swords drawn. They then put up their swords and the vicar said mass, and expounded 223the Ten Commandments, showing how all the present troubles had arisen from breaking them. This was called the captains’ mass. A priest objected that swords should not be drawn in church, and the ceremony was given up^[1051].

The chief problem now before the rebels was the attitude of Carlisle. This was determined almost by accident. On Monday 16 October the Earl of Cumberland intended to send his son Henry Lord Clifford to join Shrewsbury^[1052]. Finding that he could not go directly southwards by land without a considerable risk of falling into the rebels’ hands, Lord Clifford conceived the ingenious idea of travelling north to his uncle Sir Thomas Clifford at Berwick and taking ship to Lincolnshire^[1053]. The general rising, however, forced him to seek refuge in Carlisle Castle, and there he lay four days in hiding. Meanwhile on Friday 27 October the citizens of Carlisle sent messengers to the commons of Penrith under safe conduct. The commons were mustered on Sanderdale Hill, and the messengers reported that the burgesses of Carlisle would take no oath, but otherwise would be with them. All the people who lived in that neighbourhood thought that they would be ruined if Carlisle were not secured, for the mosstroopers of the Black Quarters, the valleys of Esk and Line, had already begun to plunder them. By Thompson’s advice they proclaimed that no one should take provisions into the town, hoping that it might be reduced by starvation, as Hull had been^[1054]. The threat would have been sufficient for the townspeople, as they had neither ordnance nor powder and the walls were in ruins, but Lord Clifford came out of his hiding-place, and said that as his father’s deputy he would be their captain and jeopardy his life with them. They were so far encouraged that they promised not to give over the town^[1055], especially as the commons had withdrawn for the moment to Cockermouth, where they passed the night of Friday 27 October. The Abbot of Holm Cultram joined them in person at Cockermouth on Saturday 28 October, and the rebels’ council ordered Sir John Lowther, “who was at Carlisle,” the abbot, Towneley, Richard Blenkhow and Thomas Dalston to go to Carlisle with orders to the mayor to meet the commons and take the oath for himself and his brethren on the following Monday at Burford (Brunfelde) Oak. The priests were very unwilling to go and one 224Percy Simpson exclaimed that “they would never be well till they had stricken off all the priests’ heads, saying they would but deceive them.” The appointed messengers went no further than Dalston, but they sent “Sir” William Robin to Carlisle and he brought back word “there was a proclamation that no man should make any unlawful assembly,” which was evidently news of the first truce of Doncaster. The abbot and Towneley told Thompson of this, but he and the other captains believed that it was only a trick to gain time and mustered next day. Towneley and other messengers were again sent to Carlisle, where they were shown the proclamation of the truce, and sent it back to the host at once. They do not seem to have believed that it would pacify the commons, and delivered their message to the mayor, who asked for a day’s respite. When Towneley and the others returned to Burford Oak, however, they found that the commons had agreed to disperse until Friday 3 November, when they were to assemble again. Thompson went back to Penrith and took no further part in the proceedings^[1056].

All this time Lord Dacre had been lying quiet at Naworth Castle. By reason of his feud with the Cliffords and his late trial for treason it had been hoped that he would join the commons, but his recent experience had been enough for him, and Sir Ingram Percy called him “first a traitor to the king and after to the commons” for remaining loyal^[1057]. He was in occasional communication with Shrewsbury^[1058], and on 30 October he sent to Lord Clifford, offering to come to his aid if the commons besieged Carlisle, and asking Clifford to come to him if they besieged Naworth. Clifford willingly agreed^[1059]. When the commons mustered at Burford Oak on Friday 3 November Sir Christopher Dacre came to them from Carlisle under safe conduct^[1060], and with the help of Towneley and the gentlemen and priests who were with them he persuaded them to accept the truce and to disperse^[1061]. It was agreed that they should bring their wares to market as before, and that Lord Clifford should prevent his soldiers from “riding on the commons.”^[1062] After this Lord Dacre went secretly up to London^[1063], thinking that he would 225be less liable to misrepresentation if he were actually under the King’s eye.

The movement in Cumberland and Westmorland was essentially a rising of the poor against the rich. The rebels wanted to abolish rents, tithes and enclosures^[1064]. In spite of the exhortations of the enthusiast, Robert Thompson, and the Abbot of Holm Cultram, the commons showed no particular zeal for the Church and treated the clergy with little respect. In consequence the gentlemen and clergy stood aloof, and the mass of eager but undisciplined commons were as great an anxiety to the leaders of the rebellion as they could be to their opponents.

From this brief sketch of the state of the northern counties up to the first truce of Doncaster two points stand out. In the first place the discontent was very strong and very widespread. The gentlemen who were usually equal to keeping order were reduced to a few isolated fortresses, Chillingham, Scarborough and Skipton; even the large towns, such as Carlisle, Newcastle and Berwick, were wavering. The progress of the insurrection may be described in the words which a German historian uses with regard to the Peasants’ War of 1525: “the peasant revolts were, in general, less of the nature of campaigns, or even of an uninterrupted series of minor military operations, than of a slow process of mobilisation interrupted and accompanied by continual negociations with the lords and princes—a mobilisation which was rendered possible by the standing right of assembly and of carrying arms possessed by the peasants.”^[1065] The widespread character of the rebellion was in its favour, but the second point is against it. In consequence of the great extent of the district affected it was inevitable that there should be many conflicting interests, which only genius could unite in a common cause. In one place the course of the rising was determined by local feuds, in another by religious enthusiasm, in another by agricultural grievances.

Though such a mass of discontent was very dangerous to the King, it was almost equally dangerous to those who were attempting to control and guide it to a definite object. It will be noticed that there were two distinct sets of agitators, whose aims were sometimes almost antagonistic. First, there was the religious movement which usually centred in some monastery—Hexham, Sawley, Furness or Holm Cultram. Its motives and object have already been described, 226and it was the cause with which the gentlemen sympathised. Second there was the social movement directed chiefly against raised rents and enclosures. Its centre seems to have been Richmondshire, and it was this cause which was most influential in Cumberland and Westmorland. The leaders had adopted the name of Captain Poverty as a symbol of their intention. The commons, they meant, were led by Poverty. There was, of course, no one definite Captain Poverty, though individual leaders might assume the name, as at Penrith, but wherever that name is used the rising was directed primarily against the gentlemen, and no particular devotion was shown to the Church as an institution. It was this second movement which resembled in many particulars the Peasants’ Revolt in Germany in 1525. There, as in England, the first demands of the peasants were social, not religious^[1066]. In Germany they soon became combined with a reforming campaign against the Church, while in England the religious movement was reactionary, but the ideals of the peasants had something in common with both tendencies, for while on the one hand they wanted reform of abuses, on the other their social programme was reactionary, looking back to the primitive form of the village community^[1067]. This may be observed in the English as well as in the German movement. The leaders of the religious insurrection in England, Aske and Darcy and the friars, seem originally to have had little or nothing to do with the social movement, and though they tried to direct it to their own ends they were rather alarmed by it.