Chapter XVI · THE KING’S POLICY

After the conference at Doncaster had concluded on Saturday 9 December 1536 there was a general dispersal of the gentlemen and nobles who had been together for so long. The commons had already gone home, rather disappointed that there had been no fighting, and half-suspicious that they had been betrayed after all. Norfolk and his colleagues set off for London to make their report to the King^[104]. Shrewsbury returned to Sheffield to keep an eye on the disaffected region^[105]. Suffolk, who had been petitioning for some time to be recalled to court, dismissed all his men but five hundred to guard the ordnance and prisoners, and went up to London^[106]. The northern gentlemen departed to their homes, where they endeavoured to keep order and to adjust the disputes between the monks and the farmers of the monasteries.

Some of the gentlemen, however, went south with Norfolk. Marmaduke Nevill^[107] asked the Duke’s leave before starting, and was told that no leave was required^[108]. These gentlemen rode south in great spirits, telling everybody that they had obtained a pardon and a parliament, and that they had set up all the abbeys again in their country. In the parliament the pardon would be confirmed and the Act of Uses repealed, for younger brothers would not have it. Marmaduke Nevill visited the Abbot of St John’s at Colchester on Saturday 16 December. The justices of the peace were dining there, and one of them asked, “How do the traitors of the north?” Nevill retorted with a catch phrase of the time, “No traitors, for if ye call us traitors, we will call you heretics.” He said that the answer of the King’s Council had been known at Pontefract before Norfolk declared it at Doncaster, and that all the south had been with the plain fellows of the north, but dared not speak their minds^[109]. 25His boasting was quickly put to silence. The justices reported his words to Cromwell and on Twelfth Day [6 January 1536–7] he was arrested by the Earl of Oxford and thrown into the Tower^[110]. His name is still to be seen there, the first of many such sorrowful memorials which were to find place on its walls in the next few months, but his fate is unknown.

On receiving a full account of the conference at Doncaster, the King’s first care was to conceal the fact that he had received a check. A report spread that the northern men had submitted unconditionally^[111]. On Friday 22 December the King, accompanied by the Queen and the Imperial Ambassador, made a magnificent progress through London to Greenwich, where he intended to keep a particularly festive Christmas. “Such a sight has not been seen since the Emperor was here. The streets were hanged with arras and cloth of gold. Priests in their copes with crosses and censers stood on one side, and the citizens on the other. It rejoiced every man wondrously.”^[112] The weather was so severe that the Thames was frozen, and the procession went down to Greenwich on the ice^[113]. The King’s daughters had preceded him and were already established there^[114].

Cromwell wrote to the English ambassadors in France on 24 December that it was false that the nobles had been forced to come to terms with the northern men because they distrusted their own levies. The King’s soldiers were entirely loyal. The King had consented to treat with the rebels only because of his merciful disposition and kindly wish to avoid bloodshed. The rebellion was now completely at an end. It was true that the rebels had at first attempted to make conditions, but finally “they submitted entirely to the King’s pleasure with the greatest repentance.”^[115] On Christmas Eve Latimer preached at Paul’s Cross, “moving to unity without any special note of any man’s folly.”^[116]

When he came to review the situation, Henry found that it was not very bad, but required caution. With regard to the monasteries, he did not consider himself as bound in any way, but he wished to create a good impression. Since March 1536, when the act for the suppression was passed, exemptions from its operation had been granted from time to time. From June to December 1536 eighteen 26monasteries had been permitted to stand, the greatest number exempted in any one month being six in August. It must be due to something more than a coincidence that in January 1536–7 the number of exemptions was seventeen^[117], only one less than the total previously exempted in the course of seven months. There is an undated list of 123 monasteries which were to be allowed to stand. Of these twenty-four are in Yorkshire, twenty-four in Lincolnshire, and not more than six in any other one county^[118]. So great was the uncertainty as to the King’s real intentions with regard to the monasteries that in Norfolk and Somerset the commissioners for the suppression suspended their work until they received further orders^[119].

Although he was angry at being forced to make a definite promise, Henry had no objection to holding a parliament. It was characteristic of him that he was not in the least afraid of his parliaments, and never doubted that he could do anything he liked with them. In this case he was prepared to be even better than his word, for though he had not promised to do so, he intended to hold the parliament at York^[120].

After Norfolk’s report had been laid before the King, a minute was drawn up, containing suggestions for the settlement of the north. It is undated, but probably belongs to the last days of 1536. There was every intention of holding a parliament in the north, but as “there remain persons who desire, either by Parliament or else by another rebellion, to compass a change from their present state ... means ought therefore to be devised for the maintenance of perfect quiet in the future.” When the King went north, loyal noblemen must be put in authority to keep the southern counties in order, especially in certain counties where there was much disaffection^[121]. A mass of treasure must be raised, “as money is necessary for the enterprises of princes and adds heart and courage in danger to all men.” Garrisons must be planted in the disaffected regions, but “so ordered as not to offend the people.” The King’s ordnance must be reviewed and properly bestowed, and a supply of weapons of all sorts must be laid in^[122]. These were not very encouraging preparations for holding a free parliament where every man should speak his mind openly, though of course the King was justified in taking precautions for his own safety and he can hardly be blamed for trusting the north less than he pretended.

27Henry soon hit upon a very ingenious scheme for introducing a sufficient force into the north without exciting suspicion. He had originally intended that Queen Jane should be crowned at Westminster on the Sunday before the feast of All Hallows 1536, but when the day came round the northern rebellion was at an acute stage, and the King had neither money nor men to waste over pageants. A convenient excuse for postponing the coronation was supplied by the prevalence of the plague in London during the autumn^[123]. At Christmas, however, the King’s policy was to make a lavish display of splendour and security, and he allowed it to be known that not only would he himself travel to York to hold his parliament, but the Queen would accompany him to be crowned in York minster^[124]. No one could object to such an honour being conferred upon the city of York, while at the same time it gave a good excuse for extensive military preparations, and for filling the city with the King’s own men.

The only one of the concessions made at Doncaster which Henry could not tolerate was the general pardon. The rising had been a stain upon his honour which blood must cleanse. He had brought himself to consent to certain limitations; he would be content with a specified number of victims, and that number should be a small one; if he could not have the leaders, he would be satisfied with vile persons; but executions there must be, and he would not feel he had done his duty as a king until someone had suffered.

His council advised that he should allure the northern gentlemen into obedience by affability, and thereby “by little and little find out the root of this matter”; also that those whose goods had been spoiled should be encouraged to prosecute the robbers, “whereby some offenders may yet be punished, and the beginners of the rebellion detected.”^[125] In the meanwhile there was no help for the general pardon, and the heralds were accordingly sent out to proclaim it.

An inclusive pardon for all the rebellious districts, provided that the inhabitants made submission to the Duke of Norfolk or the Earl of Shrewsbury, was issued on 9 December, and an order was given for separate pardons to be granted to applicants from the various counties^[126]. Suffolk had already received the pardon for Hull, Marshland, Howden, Holderness, Beverley and the East Riding^[127]. It was at first 28proposed that Thomas Hawley, Clarencieux King-of-Arms, should carry the pardon to the North Riding, Richmond, Durham and Northumberland, while Thomas Miller, Lancaster Herald, should take it to the West Riding, Lancashire, Westmorland and Cumberland. But as the former was considered the more dangerous mission, it was finally assigned to Lancaster Herald, who had acquitted himself so well before among the rebels. This was a slight which Clarencieux King-of-Arms never forgave^[128], and the effect of his resentment will be apparent later^[129].

Clarencieux King-of-Arms proclaimed the pardon at Wakefield on Tuesday^[130] 12 December, at Halifax on Wednesday 13 December, at Bradford on Thursday 14th, at Leeds on Friday 15th, at Skipton on Saturday 16th, at Kendal on Tuesday 19th. His doings at Kendal have already been described. He was at Appleby on Wednesday 20 December, at Penrith on Thursday 21st, at Carlisle on Saturday 23rd, and Cockermouth on Tuesday 26th, and at Lancaster on Sunday 31st, whence he sent back his report^[131].

Lancaster Herald wrote from Berwick on Tuesday 26 December that he had proclaimed the pardon at York, Ripon, Middleham, Barnard Castle, Richmond, Durham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Morpeth, Alnwick and Berwick. He found the commons everywhere very repentant and eager for the coming of the Duke of Norfolk, but the spiritualty were most corrupted and malicious, and the originators of all the mischief^[132].

It was no wonder that the spiritualty were offended by the pardon, which ran as follows:

“Albeit that you the King’s Highness’ subjects and commons dwelling and inhabiting in the shires of York, Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, the Bishopric of Durham, the city of York and the shire of the same, the town of Kingston-upon-Hull and the shire of the same, the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the shire of the same, and in other shires, towns, dales, places privileged, the franchises and liberties within the limits of the said shires, cities, towns, or any of them or being reputed or taken for any part, parcel or number of any of them and such other the King’s said subjects inhabited in the town of Lancaster or elsewhere by north in the shire of Lancaster have now of late attempted and committed a manifest and open rebellion against his most royal majesty, whereby was like to have ensued the utter ruin and destruction of these whole countries, to the great comfort and advancement of your ancient enemies the Scots, which as his Highness is credibly informed do with a great readiness watch upon the same, and to the high displeasure of God, Who straitly commandeth you to obey your sovereign lord and king in all things and not with violence to resist his will 29or commandment for any cause whatsoever it be: Nevertheless the King’s royal majesty perceiving as well by the articles of your pretences sent to his Highness as also duly informed by credible reports your said offences proceeded of ignorance and by occasion of sundry false tales never minded or intended by his Highness or any of his council but most craftily contrived and most spitefully set abroad amongst you by certain malicious and perverse persons, and thereupon his Highness inclined to extend his most gracious pity and mercy towards you, having the chief charge of you under God both of your souls and bodies, and desiring rather the preservation of the same and your reconciliation by his merciful means than by the order and rigour of justice to punish you according to your demerits, of his inestimable goodness, benignance, mercy, and pity, and at your most humble petitions and submissions made unto his Highness, he is contented and pleased to give and grant and by this present proclamation doth give and grant unto you all and to all and every your confederates wheresoever they dwell, of whatsoever estate, degree, or condition so ever you or they be, or by what name or names so ever they or you be or may be called, his general and free pardon for all manner treason, rebellions, insurrections, misprisions of treason, murders, robberies, felons, and of all accessories of the same and of every of them, unlawful assemblies, unlawful conventicles, unlawful speaking of words, confederacies, riots, routs, and all other trespasses, offences and contempts done and committed by you or any of you against the King’s Majesty, his crown or dignity royal, within and from the time of the beginning of the said rebellion whensoever it was unto the present day of proclaiming of this proclamation, and of all pains, judgments, executions of death and all other penalties, forfeitures, fines and forfeitures of lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods or chattels, by any of your forfeitures incurred by reason of the premisses or any of them; which fines, forfeitures, lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods and chattels, the King’s said Highness of his special grace and mere motion by these presents giveth to such of you as have or should have forfeited or lost the same by occasion of the premisses or any of them: And also his Highness is pleased and contented that you and every of you from time to time shall and may have upon your suits to be made hereafter in his Chancery his said most gracious and free pardon under his Great Seal concerning the premisses, without any further bill or warrant to be obtained for the same, and without paying any thing for the Great Seal thereof: And that you and every of you, from time to time, may freely and liberally sue for his said pardon when and as often as it shall like you, without any trouble, vexation or impeachment for the premisses or any of them by his heirs or by any his officiaries, ministers, or subjects, by any manner of means or in any manner of wise. Provided always that you and every of you in token of a perfect declaration and knowledge that ye do heartily lament and be sorry for your said offences, shall make your humble submission unto his Highness in the presence of his right trusty and right entirely beloved cousins and councillors the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Shrewsbury, his Lieutenants General, or any of them, or to their deputy or deputies of them, or any of them, or such other person or persons as the King’s Highness shall appoint for the same: Furthermore, the King’s most royal Majesty straitly chargeth and commandeth that you and every of you shall from henceforth like true and faithful subjects use yourselves, in God’s peace and his, according to the duties of allegiance, and that you shall in no wise hereafter attempt to make or procure any such rebellion, 30intent, unlawful assemblies, riots, routs and conspirations, nor at the commandment nor by the authority of any person of what estate or degree or for what cause so ever it be, shall arise in any forcible manner and array, unless it be at the special commandment of the King’s Highness or his Lieutenant sufficiently authorised for the same.

In witness whereof the King’s most royal Majesty hath caused this his proclamation to be made patent and sealed with his Great Seal at Richmond the IX day of December in the XXVIII year of his reign.”^[133]

Henry was so much accustomed to scolding his subjects and praising himself in his public documents that the pardon would appear, to those who were used to his ways, to be rather a moderate production, but it was very aggravating to the independent spirit of the northern men, and in addition to its irritating tone there were special points in it which must have been deliberately provocative. The King referred once more to the “false tales” as the causes of the insurrection, in spite of the Pilgrims’ repeated endeavours to set him right on that point. He insisted that he had “the chief charge of you under God, both of your souls and bodies,” although that was the main point at issue. Finally the proclamation was not an actual pardon, but merely the promise of a pardon when each individual Pilgrim had first made his submission to the King’s lieutenants, who had not yet even set out for the north, and had secondly sued out his private pardon in Chancery. It is difficult to know how far this phraseology is to be taken literally. The King cannot have expected all the inhabitants of the north to make a journey up to London for their private pardons. For the greater number the proclamation would have to be sufficient; but its wording was so vague as to throw a disagreeable doubt upon its validity. Consequently while the King thought the pardon far too liberal, the commons were by no means satisfied with it. Lancaster Herald did not dare to read the proclamation as it stood at Durham. He was reported to have read the pardon one way in the city of Durham and another way in the loyal town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. When this was known in Durham the citizens were so angry that they attacked the Herald on his return, and he had great difficulty in escaping from them^[134].

On Sunday 31 December the parishioners of Kendal declared that the priest must bid the beads in the old way, praying for the Pope and the cardinals. Collins brought the King’s pardon to show them, and Bricket, one of the King’s servants, warned them that if 31they were to enjoy the pardon they must keep the peace, but they cried, “Down, carle, thou art false to the commons,” and one of them, William Harrison, declared that he cared for no pardons. Collins was obliged to retreat, and left the pardons in the vestry. Parson Layborne persuaded the congregation to let the priest bid the beads as he would until the coming of the Duke of Norfolk. Collins summoned two justices of the peace to punish the ringleaders, but one magistrate was out of the country, and the other could only do his best with words^[135].

In the East Riding the pardon was also received grudgingly. Hallam said that they had liever have had some of their petitions granted^[136].

The division between the commons and the gentlemen became greater, because the gentlemen based their hopes on the coming parliament, but the commons, having no concern in the parliament, did not feel much interest in it. They did not care about the constitutional point, and wanted the King to reverse the statutes which they disliked on his own authority. All were united, however, in an eager expectation of the Duke of Norfolk’s coming. In spite of their experience in the case of Ellerker and Bowes, they still hoped that he would come very soon, perhaps immediately after Christmas, to bring the King’s reply to their petitions and to announce the date and place of the new parliament^[137]. But now that Norfolk had returned to court, he was in no hurry to set out again, and Henry was in no hurry to despatch him. The King had begun a very difficult game. Nothing would suit him better than a slight rising among the commons, one which could easily be suppressed and yet would give him an excuse for repudiating the terms granted at Doncaster. Yet if he went too far, and allowed distrust to grow too rapidly, the next rising might be as formidable as the last had been, and in that case it would be much less easily suppressed. Henry quickly discovered the solution of the problem. The lower classes without leaders were not formidable. The insurrections which they raised by themselves collapsed at the first opposition. The King’s plan, therefore, was to detach the gentlemen, to win them over to his side, if possible, or at any rate to entertain them with hope and fair words until the commons were provoked into calling them traitors and rose without them.

The best opportunity for this policy was immediately after the 32conference at Doncaster, as from 9 December until the beginning of January, in spite of some grumbling and rioting, the north was fairly quiet in the expectation of the Duke’s coming. But the departure of the gentlemen who travelled south to sue their pardons alarmed the commons and caused rumours and threats of a new rising^[138].

On Friday 15 December Henry made his most skilful move. Peter Mewtas, a gentleman of the Privy Chamber, was despatched to Robert Aske, with a letter from the King. Henry wrote that, as he had granted a free pardon to Aske, he had conceived a great desire to speak with him, and therefore summoned him to come up to court, where he trusted that by frankness Aske would deserve reward. A safe-conduct was enclosed, from the date until Twelfth Day, 6 January 1536–7. Aske was instructed not to inform anyone of the summons^[139]. The King’s object in enjoining that the visit to court must be secret was to inspire the other leaders of rebellion with fear and suspicion of Aske. If he disappeared from the north and was next heard of in London, everyone would conclude that he had gone up to turn King’s evidence. His credit would be destroyed, and the other gentlemen, trembling for their lives, might be induced to turn traitors in fact. Simple-minded as he was, Aske was not quite so foolish as to fall into this trap. He had been living in his old home at Aughton since the conference at Doncaster^[140], and did not receive the King’s messenger until after 18 December^[141], for travelling must have been slow in that bitter winter. When the letter arrived Aske sent his brother-in-law William Monketon to Lord Darcy with a copy of it, and a message that he intended to go, and that he begged Darcy to keep the country in order while he was away. After despatching the messenger he set out for London, accompanied by six servants, without waiting for an answer from Darcy. When Aske returned to the North, Monketon told him that Darcy said “he did well to venture, seeing that he had the King’s letter therefor.”^[142] Darcy was afterwards accused of having counselled Aske to take six servants and to leave one at Lincoln, another at Huntingdon, another at Ware, and to lodge the rest in different parts of London, so that if the King attempted any treachery they might bring back news to Darcy, who would come to his rescue^[143]. Aske never received any 33such message^[144], and the story in its elaborated form must be untrue^[145], but it sounds as if it might have had some foundation in Darcy’s impetuous form of humour. If Monketon hinted that he feared Aske was really on his way to the Tower, Darcy may have exclaimed, “If he is in any doubt, let him lay posts along the road to bring me early news, and I will come and fetch him out myself,”—or words to that effect. He might easily make a hasty remark of that nature, without the smallest idea that anyone would take it seriously, but Henry, like all despots, was extremely suspicious of a joke. Without any such precautions, therefore, Aske rode up to London about Christmas time.

Henry summoned Sir Thomas Wharton to court, but he excused himself^[146]. Bishop Tunstall, who was still at Norham, was also summoned. The letter, despatched on 24 December, did not reach him until 4 January, and he replied that he dared not attempt the journey through the disaffected region^[147]. Sir George Darcy and Sir Nicholas Fairfax went up on their own account at Christmas, the former carrying messages from the Earl of Northumberland^[148]. Archdeacon Magnus, who had been with Archbishop Lee since the beginning of the rising, went to the Earl of Shrewsbury and thence to London as early as 13 December^[149]. Sir Oswald Wolsthrope and Sir Ralph Ellerker had gone up to London, as well as Sir Ralph Evers, who held Scarborough so long^[150]; Lord Latimer set out, but was turned back by an order from the King^[151].

The news that so many had gone up to court gave rise to rumours. The commons said that the only object of the conference at Doncaster and the “counselling above” was to betray them, and that they would trust the gentlemen no more^[152]. This was the result which the King wished to obtain, and he took no trouble to conciliate the lower ranks of the Pilgrims.

His Council had determined that a mass of treasure must be accumulated. To achieve this, the King’s rents and taxes must be collected^[153]. The collection was not contrary to the agreement at Doncaster. The gentlemen had declared there, perhaps over hastily, that the King’s money was ready for his Highness^[154]. But considering the state of the country it would have been wiser to defer the 34collection for a time, if the King’s object had really been peace. The servants of John Gostwick, the treasurer of the tenths and first fruits, went north to collect the King’s rents immediately after the conference at Doncaster^[155]. They were accompanied by Sir George Lawson the treasurer of Berwick, who had himself been involved in the rebellion^[156]. At Templehurst, Doncaster, Wakefield, and Sheriffhutton the rents were paid quietly, but as the King’s servants went further north they began to encounter opposition^[157]. On Christmas Eve Lawson reported to Gostwick from Barnard Castle that it was impossible to induce anyone to pay at present in those parts. They all said that they had been ruined by the late disturbances. At Barnard Castle the tenants had demanded respite until twenty days after Christmas, and at Bishop Middleham until a week before Candlemas (2 February), and he could make no better terms. He himself and some other friends were advancing the money to pay the garrison at Berwick, whither he was going, while Gostwick’s servants were returning to Lawson’s house at York to wait until the appointed time for the new collection^[158]. One of the servants, Thomas Ley, wrote to Gostwick from York, confirming Lawson’s report. He added that at Middleham Lord Conyers had rather hindered than helped them^[159]. Lawson on the contrary said that Lord Conyers had done his best for them^[160].

The tenth from the clergy fell due at Christmas. The thought of it had been weighing on Archbishop Lee’s mind for some time; he requested that Norfolk should be consulted about it at Doncaster^[161]. About 31 December he received orders from the King that the tenth must be collected. As Lee felt sure that this would create disturbances he wrote on 5 January 1536–7 to consult Darcy^[162], who advised him to lay the matter before Shrewsbury. Darcy warned Shrewsbury on 7 January that it would be very dangerous to levy the tenth north of Doncaster and begged him to make the King understand this^[163]. Shrewsbury forwarded the letters to Henry on 9 January, with his own advice that the collection should be foreborne for the time^[164], but he wrote to Lee on the same day that he dared not counsel him to delay, as he had had express commands to begin it, and if the King changed his mind he would soon be informed^[165]. 35Henry’s reply was to have been a peremptory order to carry on the collection; but though there is an undated draft of it, the order was probably never sent, as before it could be despatched the situation had changed^[166].

Other measures were taken which increased the irritation of the lower classes. Preachers were sent to the north to expound the King’s orthodoxy and to represent the enormity of rebellion to their congregations, and tracts on the same subjects were circulated^[167]. The King’s reply to the first five articles^[168] was printed and sent to the north. This step may have been due partly to the King’s natural partiality for his own writing, partly to a deliberate intention of exasperating the people. The reply was extremely provocative. Even at the present day the reader of it longs to argue with the King. The Council had seen how unsuitable it was for publication when it was first written, and with great difficulty had persuaded the King to withhold it. When it was at length issued, the effect was even more aggravating than it would originally have been, for the circumstances in which the reply had been drawn up had all changed, and the reply was no longer applicable to the situation. Both the beginning and the end of the reply referred to the earlier state of affairs. It was absurd to complain that the terms of the articles were “so general that hard they be to be answered,” when a detailed list of grievances had been drawn up and sent to the King, and it was very alarming to find the King still insisting that the ringleaders must be given up before he would think of a pardon, when a general pardon had just been proclaimed^[169].

The Pilgrims believed that they had won their object; the King’s reply showed that they had lost it. In the very first clause the King spoke once again of the “light tales”; this always annoyed his opponents. They might ask, was it a light tale that the monasteries were being suppressed? Was it a light tale that the Pope’s name was omitted from the service and the King’s substituted? The King proceeded to outrage the feelings of the conservatives still further by asking, when they spoke of the maintenance of the Church, what Church they meant? The very idea that there could be more than one Church was a horrible innovation. The King went on to talk about his own Church, of which he was the Supreme Head, and to declare that this was an affair in which the commons had no right to interfere. He implies that as they had nothing to do with 36the government of the Church in the Pope’s days, so they had nothing to do with it now. Their part was to believe its doctrines and bow to its authority, whoever wielded it. But if a layman might be Supreme Head of the Church, it seemed only reasonable that other laymen might express their opinion on the subject, especially as many of them believed the choice between King and Pope so vital as to affect their eternal welfare.

The King’s defence of his Council was mere quibbling. Norfolk, Exeter and Sandys might be nominal members of the Privy Council, but their advice was never followed, and the King’s policy was determined by their chief enemy, Thomas Cromwell. Although the King boasted that the rest of his realm was loyal, the northern men had good reason to believe that a great part of the south sympathised with them. This was afterwards admitted by Henry’s panegyrist William Thomas, who said that the King was forced to treat with the rebels because he had such difficulty in mustering troops^[170].

While the King was goading the commons to further rebellion, he was drugging the gentlemen with gracious promises. Aske was most flatteringly received at court. The Spanish Chronicler gives an account of his reception which, though unreliable in details, represents the King’s general attitude in a picturesque manner:—

“When he [Aske] arrived where the King was, as soon as the King saw him he rose up, and throwing his arms around him said aloud that all might hear: ‘Be ye welcome, my good Aske; it is my wish that here, before my Council, you ask what you desire and I will grant it.’ Aske answered, ‘Sir, your Majesty allows yourself to be governed by a tyrant named Cromwell. Everyone knows if it had not been for him the seven thousand poor priests I have in my company would not be ruined wanderers as they are now. They must have enough to live upon, for they have no handicraft.’ Then the King with a smiling face and words full of falseness, took from his neck a great chain of gold, which he had put on for the purpose, and threw it round Aske’s neck, saying to him: ‘I promise thee, thou art wiser than anyone thinks, and from this day forward I make thee one of my Council.’ And then on the spot he ordered a thousand pounds sterling to be given to him, and promised him the same amount every year as long as he lived.

“The unhappy Aske, carried away with the chain and the thousand pounds and grant of annual income, was quite won over, and the King said to him, ‘Now return to the north, and get your people to disperse and go to their houses, and I will grant a general pardon for all. In order that the priests may have enough to live upon I will divide them among the parish churches and give them an allowance. Let them come at once, that this may be done. I order that 37in York each of the parishes shall take two of these priests, and give them £10 a year to live upon, but the others I will divide amongst all the towns and villages.’ When Aske saw the good tidings he had to take back he determined to return at once; and the King ordered that after all was pacified he should come to court, and he promised to make him one of his Council.”^[171]

It will be noticed that the Spaniard misses the point with respect to the monks, and greatly exaggerates the King’s gifts. Yet he preserves correctly the spirit of the interview. The King gave Aske “a jacket of crimson satin,”^[172] and requested him to write an account of his part in the Pilgrimage. Aske drew up a full narrative of all that he had done since the beginning of October. This narrative, to which we have so often referred, is the first and best history of the Pilgrimage. In it we see clearly mirrored Aske’s character and views, and it also shows the King’s flattering attitude towards him while he was at Court. Aske evidently believed that he could speak very plainly to the King without giving offence, and, with the standing explanation that he was “only declaring the hearts of the people,” he spoke out with a bluntness which must have been an unusual experience to Henry. He did not hesitate to say that if Cromwell remained in favour there would be danger of more rebellions “which will be very dangerous to your Grace’s person.”^[173] The King professed himself to be so much pleased by this frankness that he gave him “a token of pardon for confessing the truth.”

There was no difficulty in persuading Aske that the King had not known the real state of affairs in the north, and that now his eyes were opened all would go well. Cromwell, indeed, either could not win Aske over, or did not consider him worth winning. He said that all northern men were traitors, which Aske resented, and his hostility to Norfolk was very evident^[174]. Henry, however, convinced Aske of his good will. He declared that he fully pardoned all the north, that he intended to hold the parliament at York, where the Queen should be crowned, that there should be complete freedom of election, and that convocation should be held at the same time, at which the spiritualty should “have liberty to declare their learning.”^[175] The free parliament was the chief object for which Aske had been labouring, and it seemed as if that object was now within reach.

On one point, however, he was disillusioned. He discovered that 38the King did not mean to give his consent to the temporary restoration of the monasteries. The only evidence on this point is very slight. When Aske was arrested a letter was found in his possession written to him by his sister Dorothy Green. According to his accusers it appeared from this letter that Aske had written to Dorothy’s husband Richard Green that the King would not be as good as he promised concerning the Church and the abbeys. Dorothy Green’s letter has not been found, and Aske’s alleged letter to Richard Green was never produced; consequently it is impossible to know how much Aske really learned about the King’s intentions^[176]. His first impulse, on learning some part of the truth, must have been to send north the news that the King would not confirm the order for the monks which had been made at Doncaster; but he was convinced by the King’s professions of goodwill, and believed that if only there were peace in the north until the parliament met, the Pilgrims might still be successful without bloodshed. Nothing was more likely to provoke a serious outbreak than the repudiation of the terms made for the monasteries, and it may be assumed that these considerations weighed with Aske so much that he was silent about the King’s determination.

The situation of the monks was a very uneasy one, even without knowledge of the King’s intentions. They were apt to be bullied by their own champions. William Aclom had carried off “two trussing bedsteads” at the sack of Leonard Beckwith’s house, and had deposited them at the Priory of the Holy Trinity at York. He wrote to the Prior on 12 December: “Mr Prior, I marvel at your doubleness, which is a great vice in a religious man, touching a bed of Beckwith’s you promised to send to me. I think you reckon our journey in vain. Send it or I will do you further displeasure.”^[177] The Abbot of Jervaux lost thirty wethers during the rebellion and appealed to one of the rebels named Edward Middleton, a hunter, to “find” them. It was probably a case of “no questions asked, upon my honour.”^[178]

The monastery of Tynemouth was harried; the mutilation of a letter leaves it doubtful by whom^[179]; but perhaps the loyal burgesses of Newcastle had some hand in it, for they had long been at feud with the Priory^[180]. The monks had no prior at the time. They appealed for protection to Darcy, who recommended them to Sir Thomas Hilton^[181].

39Some monks suspected that after Doncaster there was little hope for the success of the Pilgrimage. Dan Ralph Swensune, a monk of Lenton Abbey, Notts., said at Christmas time,

“In the misericorde while sitting by the fire on a form ... ‘I hear say that the King has taken peace with the commonty till after Christmas, but if they have done so it is alms to hang them up, for they may well know that he that will not keep no promise with God Himself but pulls down His churches, he will not keep promise with them; but if they had gone forth onward up and stricken off his head then had they done well, for I warrant them if he can overcome them he will do so by them.’ ‘Peace,’ said the sub-prior, ‘you rail you wot not whereof.’ ‘Nay,’ said he, ‘I say as it will be.’ ‘Peace,’ said the sub-prior, ‘In the virtue of obedience I command you speak no more at this time.’”^[182]

A certain Dan Robert Castelforth had begged Aske to help him to the priorship of Blyth in Nottingham. On 12 December he wrote to ask for his letters back again, which was a very prudent measure, unfortunately defeated by the fact that this letter was preserved^[183]. The Abbot of St Mary’s, York, on 18 January, did his best to make his peace with Cromwell by sending him a gift and abject apologies for the part that he had taken in the rising, which, as he said, had been forced upon him by the commons^[184].

The less cautious religious were induced to go back to their houses. Reference has already been made to the cases of Conishead, Cartmell, and the Friars Observant of Newcastle-upon-Tyne^[185]. The Abbot and monks of Sawley had been restored and were living on the alms of their neighbours. Nicholas Tempest sent them a fat ox, a mutton and two or three geese, and others also contributed^[186]. A little before Christmas the Abbot sent a request to Sir Stephen Hamerton that he would write to Robert Aske to know what should become of the house. The first messenger returned without an answer, Aske being in London. A second man, George Shuttleworth, was sent, and returned with the required letter. The Abbot despatched him with it to Aughton, as Aske had now returned. Aske knew by this time that the King was not going to allow the monasteries to stand and therefore advised the Abbot to submit to any man who came to him in the King’s name and to keep the commons quiet^[187].

Several of the greater monasteries, though not yet dissolved, had been thrown into confusion by the fact that the abbot or prior had been deprived, and the house was left either without a head, or with 40one who was a mere creature of Cromwell’s. Tynemouth was without a prior. The Prior of Watton had fled to London, greatly to the indignation of the monks and the neighbouring commons^[188]. In February 1535–6 the visitors of the monasteries had induced James Cockerell, the Prior of Guisborough, to resign^[189]. They appointed in his place Robert Sylvester alias Pursglove, who was “meet and apt both for the King’s honour and the discharge of your [Cromwell’s] conscience, and also profitable.” James Cockerell, however, had provision made for him on his retirement, including a mansion called “the Bishop’s Place” in Guisborough^[190]. With a new prior of this temper and with the old prior still living in the neighbourhood it was not surprising that the internal affairs of the monastery did not go smoothly, and twice in the course of the rebellion Sir John Bulmer, as steward of the Priory, was called in to mediate. The second time it was the new prior who appealed to him, from which it may be inferred that Sir John strove to keep the peace and did not favour the monks unduly^[191].

Although the Pilgrimage had been undertaken on behalf of the monks, the secular clergy had been the moving spirits in it, and their ardour had not yet cooled. On 12 December 1536 Dakyn wrote to William Tristram, the chantry priest of Lartington, to rebuke him for being over-zealous in bearing arms, collecting money, and urging his parishioners to fight^[192]. Lancaster Herald reported on 26 December that the spiritualty of the north were “most corrupted and malicious ... inward and part outward,”^[193] and on 22 January 1536–7 Sir William Fairfax wrote to Cromwell accusing all the clergy of the north, both regular and secular:—

“The houses of religion not suppressed make friends and wag the poor to stick hard in this opinion, and the monks who were suppressed inhabit the villages round their houses and daily wag the people to put them in again. These two sorts hath no small number in their favours, arguing and speaking. The head tenants of abbots, bishops and prebendaries have greater familiarity with their landlords than they used to have. None are more busy to stir the people than the chief tenants of commandry lands of Saint John of Jerusalem. Where the archbishop, bishops, abbots and spiritual persons have rule the people are most ready at a call. The insurrection in Lincolnshire began at Louth, the Bishop of Lincoln’s town, next at Howden, Yorks, the Bishop of Durham’s town, Sir Robert Constable, a virtuous pilgrim of grace, there being steward, and then at Beverley, the Archbishop of York’s town, York being worst of all.... The King 41should command his lord deputy to put out the rulers made by spiritual men, for their bailiffs are brought up from childhood with priests, and are malicious in their quarrels.”^[194]

The dean and canons of York were supposed to be laying in a store of weapons^[195]. At Kendal on 28 January there was a tumult in the church at the bidding of beads; Sir Walter Brown “second curate,” said, “Commons, I will bid the beads as ye will have me,” and prayed for the Pope and the cardinals^[196].

It was very difficult for Darcy and the other gentlemen to control this ferment, and the difficulty was increased by the behaviour of some of the gentlemen.

Since Sir Thomas Percy had gone to Northumberland, the whole country had been plunged in disorder. “The Percys and their friends and the Grays and their friends take contrary parts and make contrary proclamations who shall be sheriff.”^[197] Thomas Gray, Darcy’s nephew, who represented him at Bamborough, sent word to him that twenty-four score ploughs were laid down in Northumberland on account of the raids made by the mosstroopers of Tynedale and Reedsdale; “the most part of Northumberland is broken amongst themselves, and open forays made by Sir Ingram Percy and others against the Grays.”^[198] Darcy sent this news to Norfolk on 15 December 1536^[199].

Before the appointment Sir Thomas Percy was living at his castle of Prudhoe on the Tyne, “where the most noted offenders of Tynedale and Hexhamshire resorted to him, especially John Heron of Chipchase, Edward Charleton, Cuddy Charleton, Geffray Robson, Anthony Errington and others.” Sir Thomas, however, was not very often at Prudhoe, as he was continually riding about the country. He acted as lieutenant of the Middle Marches, although he had received no authority, and in this capacity summoned a great meeting at Rothbury for the redress of spoils and the establishment of Tynedale and Reedsdale. The aggrieved royalists complained that nothing was done except the proclamation of a peace for twenty days, which was not observed, and the administration of the Pilgrims’ oath to all the gentlemen who had not taken it before at Alnwick. In addition to this Sir Thomas proclaimed that anyone who captured a Carnaby or a follower of the Carnabys should have the prisoner’s goods. At Hexham market he demanded of the people “what help he might have in the quarrel of the commons.” As lieutenant of the Middle Marches he attempted to hold the “warden’s day” with the Scots, but 42they refused to meet him as he had no authority. On this occasion he spent the night with John Heron at Harbottle Castle, and then rode to join his brother Sir Ingram at Alnwick. Sir Ingram was very anxious as to the result of the conference at Doncaster, for it was only too clear that the private interests of the brothers were a matter of very little concern to the commons, while their removal was a great object with the King. “In the chapel at Alnwick” he confided his fears to Sir Thomas. If the King came to an agreement with the commons it could do the Percys no good. Sir Thomas reassured him as well as he could. The leaders had promised to grant nothing without sending him information, and they would never consent to any terms but a general pardon,—“wherefore let us do that we think to do whiles we may, and that betimes.”^[200]

In Cumberland the feud between the Dacres and the Cliffords broke out again, though affairs were not so bad as in Northumberland. Lord Clifford, Cumberland’s eldest son, was still in Carlisle, but Lord Dacre had gone up to London some time before. On Saturday 9 December, the last day of the conference at Doncaster, Richard Dacre, coming to Carlisle with a company of Lord Dacre’s tenants, met Lord Clifford at the church door “and looked upon him with a haut and proud countenance, not moving his bonnet.” In the churchyard he encountered Sir William Musgrave. “Without speaking one word,” Dacre attacked Musgrave with his dagger, and would have killed him but for “a son of the laird Featherstonhaugh,” who snatched out his dagger and leapt between the two. Dacre and Featherstonhaugh drew their swords, but Musgrave’s men separated them. Dacre cried through the town “A Dacre! A Dacre!” and a great company assembled in the market-place. Lord Clifford took refuge in the Castle. The mayor and Edward Aglionby, a prominent citizen, “commanded Richard Dacre to avoid the market-place,” but he refused to stir until the mayor summoned the townsmen to arms and joined Clifford in the Castle. In spite of the preparations that were being made to attack him Dacre “went to his lodging and dined and departed at his leisure.” Next Sunday, 17 December, Dacre appeared at Carlisle again, accompanied by twenty men of Gilsland “in harness for some unlawful purpose.” By Clifford’s orders the mayor and Aglionby went out to stop him from entering the town, but he would not be stayed and entered the market-place. However he found that Clifford was in possession this time; “he perceived the 43lord Clifford, well accompanied, come to the market cross and make a proclamation....” He probably announced the terms made at Doncaster, but the account breaks off at this point^[201].

The zeal of the loyalists was almost as embarrassing to those who were trying to keep the peace as the lawlessness of the Percys and Dacres. Shrewsbury demanded the restitution of cattle which had been driven away during the disturbances^[202]. Derby kept a great Christmas at Lathom and strengthened the Castle, proceedings which the commons watched with a jealous eye^[203]. The Earl of Cumberland was ill about Christmas time, but he summoned several of the gentlemen who had taken part in the Pilgrimage to come and see him. Sir Richard Tempest excused himself on the grounds that he was as “sore a crasyd” as the Earl^[204]. Sir Stephen Hamerton did not dare to go^[205]. On 14 December Cumberland reported that since the appointment at Doncaster, bills had been set on the church doors of Gargrave, Rylston, Lynton and Burnsall in Craven. These bills bade the priest order the constable of the parish to charge the parishioners to be at Rylston on Tuesday [12 December] to kill all the deer they could find^[206]. Cumberland’s retainers had been in the habit of hunting at Rylston, which belonged to John Norton, whenever they felt inclined^[207], and the commons were following their example; but, as Cumberland observed, the insurrection had begun with bills set on the church doors, though the contents of the bills had been different. The Earl declared his intention of arresting the instigators of the bills; he suspected that they were “gentlemen, some of them the King’s servants,” but he had as yet no certain information^[208]. He was evidently hinting at Sir Richard Tempest. Before Christmas the Earl imprisoned in Skipton Castle “one of Harry Amarton’s sons, a man of law, and also one Thomas Porter.” They must have been Ribblesdale men, as Lord Clifford was nearly captured in Christmas week when he went to mass at Giggleswick; the commons declared that they would take and hold him until his father released the prisoners^[209]. Shortly after Christmas the travellers assembled in an alehouse at Kettlewell talked of “how gently my lord of Cumberland had treated such prisoners as had been a-hunting in his chaces, and Tenande, who had been with them in gaol for the said matter, affirmed the same.”^[210] It does not appear whether they were speaking 44sarcastically, or whether Cumberland was really a model gaoler, whose praises were sounded by his ex-prisoners. The arrests were injudicious, considering the unsettled state of Westmorland, and Darcy wrote on 17 January that the Earl of Cumberland was “likely to have business for two prisoners he keeps.”^[211]

About Christmas time it was reported that Robert Pulleyn, who had been a leader in the Pilgrimage, had paid the detested levy of the neat geld and had taken bribes and put men into possession of lands. His neighbours of Kirkby Stephen attacked him, and “would have spoiled his goods, but upon sureties and entreaty of certain men they delivered him again.” “Shortly after the goods of one Mr Rose were taken away by night of thieves and the country was afraid of burning.”^[212] On Saturday 29 December the tenants of Broughton and Talentire turned the threshers out of the tithe barns and locked the barn-doors; the movement against the tithes threatened to spread to the neighbouring villages^[213]. On 12 January the Earl of Cumberland wrote to the King that there had been musters about Cockermouth since the pardon and that the Westmorland men were turning against their captains in the late rising “for such money as they had gathered among them.” Also bills were being set on the church doors in Yorkshire. The Earl urged emphatically that Carlisle must be strengthened, as the fortifications were in a state of decay and the commons would certainly attack the town if they rose again^[214].

In Richmond a new insurrection was talked of soon after Christmas, and Dakyn, who preached against the Pope, was saved from being pulled out of the church only by the intervention of “Ralph Gowre and other honest men.”^[215] Lancaster Herald was attacked in Durham after Christmas, and on 2 January the Earl of Westmorland was warned that there were stirrings about Auckland^[216]. When Lawson and Gostwick’s servants returned to Barnard Castle to collect the King’s rents at the time appointed they found that there was still no money and no prospect of it^[217].

The burden of all the letters from Darcy, Cumberland, and Lawson, is the same; the Duke of Norfolk must be sent at once. If he came and brought a satisfactory answer from the King the commons would be pacified. It did not suit Henry, however, to do anything in a 45hurry. The gentlemen could scarcely expect Norfolk to return before Christmas, but Christmas passed, and the new year came, and January was slipping away, and still there was no news of his approach. Meanwhile so far from soothing the commons and making the task of the gentlemen easier, all the reports that came from “above” were of an alarming nature. The King’s answer to the first five articles put the commons in doubt of their pardon^[218]. It became known that the King was demanding the tenth, and the commons were quite clever enough to see that any money sent out of the north weakened them and strengthened the King^[219]. It was said that their harness was to be taken from them and stored at York^[220]; that the appointment was not observed in Lincolnshire^[221] but that the prisoners there were already being brought to execution^[222]; that the monasteries were not to be allowed to stand; and that the King intended to fortify Hull and Scarborough^[223]. These rumours described very accurately the King’s real intentions. The gentlemen tried not to believe them and tried to persuade the commons that they were false, but there was all the more difficulty in doing this as the promise of a parliament did not pacify the commons at all. They murmured among themselves that “the Parliament men would not get them what they rose for.”^[224] As they never even thought of being represented in the new parliament, they were much more inclined to pin their faith on the arbitrary power of the King, and all their hopes centred in the coming of the Duke of Norfolk.

The hero of Flodden was very popular in the north—“no man ... would withstand the Duke of Norfolk, but as for Suffolk they would hold him herehence the best they could.”^[225] The gentlemen therefore found it easiest to keep order by exhorting the commons to hold over their grievances until the Duke of Norfolk came. Yet still there was no news that he had set out. The commons grew more and more uneasy. Another matter troubled them, Aske had ridden up to London before Christmas, and since then nothing had been heard of him. The gentlemen suspected him of betraying them. The commons were more faithful to their leader. They did indeed suspect treachery, but it was on the King’s part. The rumour ran that Aske had been beheaded in London^[226] and that Norfolk was in the 46Tower. The story of Norfolk’s arrest is a spirited narrative, which shows the pathetic confidence that the northern men had in the Duke, and also how entirely baseless a most circumstantial story may be:—

“My Lord Cromwell came to the King and said, ‘Sir, and please your Grace, ye are minded to send the Duke of Norfolk northward shortly?’ And the King said ‘Yea.’ And my lord said again, ‘Sir, as far as I can perceive, my lord of Norfolk hath granted the commonty all their demands or else he would take their part, and as far as I perceive he will lose no part of his honour.’ Then the King sent for my lord of Norfolk and asked him whether he would do so. And he answered the King that he would be loath but that the commons should have their demands, and would be loath to lose any part of his honour. Then the King commanded him to the Tower. And thereupon my lord William [Howard] went to the lieutenant of the Tower and desired that he might speak with my lord of Norfolk, and could not; and returned again toward the Rolls to speak with my Lord Privy Seal, and he was gone and had taken his barge to go to the Court. Then as my Lord William came along Chancery Lane he met with Richard Cromwell; and there (said) my lord: ‘By God’s blood I will be revenged of one of you,’ and took out his dagger and did stick him therewith, and turned him with his hand and so killed him.”

This story was told “in Johnson’s house at Minstergate in York” on Saturday 13 January^[227], but it had probably been travelling about the country before that date. When Sir Robert Constable heard it he said, “As in the chronicles of the Romans there was a gentleman who, having killed the Emperor’s secretary in mistake for the Emperor, ran unto a pan of coals and burnt off the hand that missed the Emperor; so the said lord William may burn his hand for missing of killing my lord Cromwell.”^[228]

In the East Riding the agitation was strongest. The commons feared that Hull and Scarborough were to be fortified and held by the Duke of Suffolk, to become a refuge for the gentlemen and a menace to the commons if the King resolved to deny their petition. The leader of this agitation was John Hallam^[229]. His position with regard to the gentlemen leaders of the Pilgrimage was rather similar to that of a Labour member towards members of a Liberal government at the present day. Having no responsibility himself, he was always ready to urge on the most sweeping measures and the most dangerous enterprises. He was quite shrewd enough to see through the King’s moves, but not wise enough to realise that policy must be met by policy, and that to resort to violence was to play into his opponent’s hand. It was not without reason that he distrusted the gentlemen, and he had not sufficient tact to conceal his suspicions and strive at all costs to preserve unity among the Pilgrims. The fatal cleavage 47between class and class was broadening rapidly; as always happens in the many causes which it has wrecked, each party had a certain amount of reason, the gentlemen to fear the commons, the commons to distrust the gentlemen; but to quarrel among themselves merely increased the danger. Their only chance of obtaining their purpose and securing their pardon lay in strict co-operation. Neither party could understand this. The commons could not be patient, and raised a cry of treachery at each delay. The gentlemen grew more and more alarmed by their turbulence, and were continually tempted to throw over the cause and make themselves safe individually.

Hallam made his headquarters at Watton parish church. As early as Christmas, before the appointment was a month old, he was whispering to its frequenters that Hull was false to the commons, and that the men of Holderness were ready to rise again. He saw as plainly as did the King that if Hull and Scarborough were fortified and garrisoned “they were able to destroy the whole country about.”^[230] Twelfth Day, the feast of Epiphany, 6 January, fell this year on a Saturday. The following Monday, 8 January, was called Plough Monday, and was a festival and holiday^[231]. Hallam and his friends celebrated it by drinking at John Bell’s tavern in Watton, and after the festivity was over, Hallam, Hugh Langdale, Philip Uty, Thomas Lunde, William Horskey and the vicar of Watton returned home together. When they came to the church they turned in to say a paternoster; the vicar left the laymen, who went to Our Lady’s altar, a chantry in the church. Hallam remarked that Langdale had come into the country recently and had never taken the commons’ oath. He brought out a copy of the oath and asked Langdale whether he thought there was anything unlawful in it. Langdale said no, and took the oath willingly^[232]. Then Hallam said to the others, “Sirs, I fear me lest Hull do deceive us the commons, for there is ordnance daily carried in thither by ships, and they make prie yates [privy gates] and Scarborough shall be better fortified, and the gentlemen will deceive us the commons, and the King’s Grace intends to perform nothing of our petitions. Wherefore I think best to take Hull and Scarborough ourselves betimes; and to the intent that we may do that the better, I think best that ye, Hugh Langdale, do go forth to William Levening and Robert Bulmer or William Constable whether [whichever] he would; you, Horskey, 48to Sir Robert Constable, and I will go to Hull to inquire what tidings goeth abroad in those parts and how they are minded there, and after that let us meet all in this place together again upon Wednesday next, then to take further counsel what is to be done in this matter.” The other two promised to take their messages, but next morning, when they were already mounted and about to start, Hallam met them with a letter from Robert Aske, announcing that he had returned to the north and was about to hold a great meeting next day, Tuesday 9 January at Beverley. He asked Hallam to met him first at Arras and to ride with him to the meeting. On receiving this great news they all agreed that they must go to Beverley instead of performing their errands^[233].

Aske left London on Friday 5 January, riding north secretly and “with most haste.”^[234] It was an amazingly clever stroke of policy on Henry’s part to send back the leader of the Pilgrims to pacify the disturbance that the King himself had fomented, and to prevent it from passing beyond control. Aske rode swiftly and reached home on 8 January, the very day when Hallam was plotting in Watton church.

As soon as Aske arrived he wrote to Darcy, repeating the King’s gracious promises, and saying that he intended to visit Templehurst next day. He was already busy quieting his own neighbourhood^[235], and scarcely had he arrived when appeals for assistance came pouring in from all quarters. Hallam’s agitation was known to Sir Marmaduke Constable, who wrote to welcome Aske home and to beg him to pacify Beverley, which was ready to rise in consequence of a rumour that the King was secretly sending ordnance to Hull. Sir Marmaduke said that Hallam would not listen to him, but Aske might have more influence^[236].

In consequence of this message Aske appointed the meeting at Beverley next day. Two manifestos containing the King’s reply were issued to pacify the country. They are undated, but must have been issued immediately after Aske’s return. One was by Aske himself, and announced the King’s promise of a general pardon, and that “your reasonable petitions shall be ordered by Parliament.” The King himself was coming to hold the parliament at York, the Queen was to be crowned there, and the arrival of the Duke of Norfolk might soon be expected^[237]. Sir Oswald Wolsthrope, who had perhaps ridden 49north with Aske, in another manifesto repeated and amplified these statements. Norfolk was to bring the particulars concerning the parliament. He would come “with a mean company and after a quiet manner.” The parliament, the convocation and the coronation were all to be held in York at Whitsuntide; until then the commons had only to keep the peace and refuse to listen to any who bid them make new disturbances^[238].

On Tuesday 9 January, instead of going to Templehurst, Aske rode to Beverley. The Twelve Men and the whole town had assembled, besides many people from the neighbourhood, among them Horskey, Langdale and Hallam. Aske addressed the assembly, beginning: “The King’s Highness is good and gracious unto us the commons all, and he hath granted us all our desires and petitions, and he will keep a Parliament shortly at York, and there also for the more favour and goodwill that he beareth to this country he purposeth to have the Queen’s Grace crowned ...” “adding many other good words on the King’s behalf.” He went on to declare that the Duke of Norfolk was coming shortly, and would bring “a better report unto them from the King’s Grace under the Great Seal.”^[239] After Aske’s speech, questions were asked, as at a modern meeting. Hallam wanted to know why, if the King’s intentions were so favourable, he had given orders for the collection of the tenth and of his rents before the parliament time. Aske had not heard of these orders, and the news must have been a disagreeable shock to him, but he put the best face he could on the matter, and said that the King had probably sent only for the money that had already been collected and was in Archbishop Lee’s hands^[240]; in any case the clergy had freely granted the tenth^[241], and the Pilgrims had decided that “it might be borne well enough.”^[242]

After the meeting Aske and all the principal men who attended it were invited by Mr Crake and the Twelve Men to dinner at Christopher Sanderson’s house. When Hallam and Horskey entered the room Crake drew them aside to a window and said, “Mr Hallam, I pray you stay the country about you. Ye see how good and gracious the King’s highness is to us and will be undoubtedly. There be certain lewd fellows abroad in the country that would stir the people to naughtiness again, as Nicholson of Preston in Holderness and the bailiff of Snaith. I pray you stay them and be not counselled by them.” The appeal was 50judicious, and Hallam was reassured and pacified. He promised that he would not stir. For the moment this danger seemed to be averted^[243].

Aske rode back to Aughton, but next day Wednesday 10 January Sir Marmaduke Constable appealed to him again. He congratulated him on quieting Beverley, but a rising was now threatened at Ripon and there was mustering on a moor near Fountains. The commons said that Aske had been beheaded in London, and his presence was urgently needed^[244]. Next day, 11 January, Sir Marmaduke wrote to Cromwell to report that Aske had pacified Beverley and the East Riding, but that the North Riding was still dangerous, and Norfolk was very much wanted^[245].

Aske received Sir Marmaduke’s letter on Thursday 11 January, and at the same time he was summoned by Darcy to come and help to stay the parts round Templehurst^[246]. He sent news of his return and of the King’s goodwill to Ripon and rode to Templehurst^[247]. Darcy had received on 10 January a summons from the King to go up to court “in order that the King may show he retains no displeasure against him.”^[248] Sir Robert Constable, who was also at Templehurst, had received a similar summons. Aske described to them his encouraging interviews with the King, and, as he had kept a copy of it, he showed them his narrative of his own doings during the rising. Darcy asked how the King had spoken of him. Aske replied that the King had referred to him and others as “offenders before the pardon,” but he had not otherwise mentioned him. They consulted together over the King’s summons, and decided that as the country was “in a floughter and a readiness to rise,” it would be very unwise for Darcy and Constable to alarm the commons by going up to court. Aske advised Sir Robert to go back to Holme and Darcy to stay where he was, and promised to write to the King to explain their delay and to beg him to excuse them^[249].

On Friday 12 January Aske had returned to Aughton once more, and sent the King a report of all that had happened and all that he had done since his return home. The frank and outspoken tone of his letter is a great contrast to that of Norfolk’s reports. He described how he had pacified Beverley. The people were very joyous to hear that the King himself proposed to visit them, and that Norfolk was coming, and the gentlemen were anxious to keep 51order; but the commons were still very wild, bills were posted on the church doors, and unless Norfolk came soon, accompanied by the worshipful men now with the King, another rising was to be feared. The points which caused the most uneasiness were as follows:—

(1) The people suspected that the parliament would be delayed.

(2) The King had summoned the leading gentlemen to London.

(3) The answer to the first five articles made the people doubt whether the King would confirm the pardon.

(4) They were afraid of the cities being fortified, especially in the case of Hull.

(5) The tenths were being demanded.

(6) Cromwell (my lord Privy Seal) was in as great favour as ever.

Aske concluded:

“Finally, I could not perceive in all the shires, as I came from your Grace’s homewards, but your Grace’s subjects be wildly minded in their hearts towards commotions or assistance thereof, by whose abetment yet I know not; wherefore, Sir, I beseech your Grace to pardon me in this my rude letter and plainness of the same, for I do utter my poor heart to your Grace to the intent your Highness may perceive the danger that may ensue; for on my faith I do greatly fear the end to be only by battle.”^[250]

He proposed to ride to Ripon on Saturday 13 January to pacify the North Riding. Darcy seconded Aske’s efforts by issuing a proclamation against rebellious assemblies^[251]. On Saturday 13 January Dorothy Darcy, Sir George Darcy’s wife, wrote to her husband from Gateforth, begging him to come home and protect his poor children and herself, as the wildness of the country filled her with terror. She had heard that the disturbance at Beverley was due to the arrival of some ships at Hull laden with wine, corn, and Lenten stores. Although Beverley was pacified, the country all round Lady Darcy’s home was very much disturbed. In Kirkbyshire captains had been appointed and at Leeds bills had been set on the church doors^[252]. One of these bills has been preserved and runs:

“Commons, keep well your harness. Trust you no gentlemen. Rise all at once. God shall be your governor and I shall be your captain.”^[253]

Darcy wrote to the King on Sunday 14 January to excuse himself for not obeying the summons to court. He did not speak of the 52unsettled state of the country, which made his presence in the north desirable, but described his illness. Since the meeting at Doncaster he had not thrice left his chamber. Nevertheless he was ready to come if his health would mend a little and if the King would give him leave to come by water^[254]. This may have been merely an excuse, but the journey to London from Templehurst in mid-winter must really have been a dangerous undertaking for a man of Darcy’s age in a bad state of health.

On the news of the disturbance in Beverley the northern gentlemen at court were sent home. Sir Ralph Evers wrote to Sir John Bulmer that the Duke was to be at Doncaster on the last day of January, and Sir John was appointed to attend him with ten men^[255]. Sir Ralph Ellerker was despatched on Monday 15 January with instructions to be delivered to the corporation of Hull^[256]. On 16 January the King sent to Sir Robert Constable a countermand of the summons to come up to London^[257].

Henry was satisfied with the result of his manoeuvres. The disturbance at Beverley, although it had been checked before it came to anything, gave him an excuse for disregarding the general pardon. A competent number of victims could now be sacrificed to the cleansing of the King’s honour. Norfolk was to be sent north at last. A device was made by the King and his Council “for the perfect establishment of the North parts.” Not only was Norfolk to be sent into Yorkshire with a council of “personages of honour, worship and learning,” but Suffolk was to return to Lincolnshire “and put the men of substance there ready at an hour’s warning to enter Yorkshire in aid of my lord of Norfolk,” while Sussex went to assist the Earl of Derby to “put the parts [of Lancashire] not corrupted with the late rebellion ready to serve the King at an hour’s warning.” Cheshire was also to be prepared to muster, and “certain discreet and learned personages” were to be sent into all these parts “to preach and teach the word of God that the people may the better know their duties.” The Lord Admiral was to take over Pontefract from Lord Darcy, and to garrison the castle. Sandall Castle was to be delivered by Sir Richard Tempest to Sir Henry Saville, who would command a garrison there, and Ellerker and Evers would place garrisons in Hull and Scarborough. The other nobles, Shrewsbury, Rutland and the rest, and the gentlemen who had held command 53in the King’s army, such as Sir Francis Brian and Sir William Parr, were to call out their men, ready to march to Norfolk’s assistance. Provision was made for Norfolk’s train and salary, for levying the tenth and so forth. This was the end, or almost the end, of the idea that Norfolk would bear a conciliatory reply from the King. The Council, which always favoured moderate measures, drew up a list of suggestions which were not quite so drastic; they proposed that the more favourable parts of the King’s reply should be embodied in proclamations to be issued in the north, and that the people should “be given hope of pardon, for despair might cause them to reassemble,” but the King would temporise no more^[258]. A minute was drawn up of a letter which directed the gentlemen of the north to have their servants ready to assist Norfolk in the punishment of those who had offended since the proclamation of the pardon. The King trusted that this might be effected without difficulty, but although the most part of his subjects were sincerely repentant, “there may remain some desperate persons who might move further sedition.”^[259]

The King was determined to have his executions, even if they provoked a new rising; but he was to be more fortunate than he as yet dared to hope.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XVI

Note A. Froude adds to the complication of the huge Constable family by calling Marmaduke Nevill Sir Marmaduke Constable. The historians of the Tower have assigned the inscription of Marmaduke Nevill to some unknown relation of the last Earl of Westmorland who may have taken part in the Rising of the North^[260], but it is more likely to have been cut by the Marmaduke Nevill who is known to have existed in 1537.

Note B. The herald says Monday 12 November, but this must be a mistake.

Note C. The evidence is that George Lassells said that Thomas Estoft said that Thomas Saltmarsh said that Darcy had said this^[261]. Thomas Estoft was interrogated and deposed that Thomas Saltmarsh had told him that Darcy advised Aske to lay post horses and if he sent bad news Darcy would rescue him, but without the details, which seem to have sprung from Lassells’ imagination^[262]. “One Saltmarsh” had quarrelled with Aske at the beginning of the rebellion “disdaining that he should be above him”; possibly this was the Thomas Saltmarsh who spread the story^[263].

54Note D. The Spanish Chronicle gives a confused account of this speech:

“When [Aske] arrived to where his people were he made them a speech after this fashion: ‘Oh, my brothers and gentlemen, what a wise and virtuous prince we have! He recognised the justice of our cause, has given us a general pardon, and to you, the priests, he will give enough to live upon. Here is an order for York, providing for many of you in the parishes there, and you are to go thither at once to be apportioned to various places.’ When the people heard this they all cried with one voice, ‘Long live our good King!’ and the hostages were sent back to the Duke’s quarters, and, in short, in a few hours all the people were on their way home, for they were already tired of it, and had wasted a good deal of their cattle.”^[264] The Spaniard confuses Aske’s return from London with his return to Pontefract after the second conference at Doncaster.

Note E. In his letter of 12 January Aske says that he has already gone to Lord Darcy^[265]. Afterwards, in his examination, he said that he received Darcy’s letter four or five days after he was at Beverley^[266], but it was natural that his memory of such hurrying days should be rather confused.

55