Chapter XVII · HALLAM AND BIGOD (continued 2)

As soon as Lord Darcy had declared his opinion, Sir George took the opposite side. He wrote back on Tuesday 30 January that the country was far from quiet and that he dared not wait the three days which must elapse before Norfolk arrived without beginning to prepare the castle; neither did he dare to leave the castle even for the few hours which were required for a visit to Templehurst, and he therefore refused to come to his father to see the King’s letter. This was the point at which matters stood when Norfolk arrived at Doncaster.

Before the Duke reached the north, Cromwell sent an agent of his own, Sir Ralph Sadler, to see how the land lay. Sir Ralph’s ostensible mission was to go to Scotland and to demand from the government the surrender of the Lincolnshire fugitives^[485], but with this he combined the duty of writing careful reports on the state of the disaffected districts. On Tuesday 23 January he reached York. He heard many rumours on the road of fresh risings further north, and found that there were bills on all the church doors between Doncaster and York, urging the commons to stick together as the gentlemen had deceived them. All the country through which he had passed was quiet, but if there were a new insurrection, the people would take the part of the army which arrived first, to save their goods.

Sadler talked with many of the “honest householders,” who declared that Aske had caused the first rising by spreading bills that the parish churches should be pulled down, and that taxes were to be levied on marriages, burials, and christenings. They were also positive that the gentlemen had been willing enough to take part in the rising. “Why,” quoth Sadler, “the gentlemen were taken by the commons and compelled to be their captains.” “Yea, yea,” was the reply, “an the gentlemen had been as they should be they might 94have stayed them well enough at the first; but when the gentlemen took their parts, then such poor men as we be could do no less than do as they did or else have been spoiled of all that we have.” Sadler was particularly intimate with the hosts of the various inns at which he stayed. The host of the village inn has always been an oracle of almost equal authority with the village priest. At Tadcaster Sadler’s host, a merry fellow, said to him, “Why, how say ye to my lord Darcy? Did he not turn to the commons as soon as they came to Pontefract and took their part? And yet being within the castle he might have resisted them if they had been ten times as many as they were.”^[486] When the King was receiving such reports, it was not very likely that he would keep his promise to take the first insurrection “but for a dream.”^[487]

Sadler wrote again on 28 January from Newcastle. A day or two before he set out on his journey, there had been great danger of a new rising in Cleveland, owing to bills which were scattered abroad to warn the people that the Duke of Norfolk was coming with a great army “to hang and draw from Doncaster to Berwick,” so that the north would be “brought in worse case than the Lincolnshire men.” The rising had been prevented by Robert Bowes, who was travelling all over the district to quiet the people. Sadler remarked that as the gentlemen had been able to repress the present attempt, they could have dealt with the first rebellion just as easily if they had wished. In spite of the recent disturbance, all the country through which he had passed was quiet except Darlington, where he had spent a night and found the people very “tickle.” He alighted at his inn at about 6 o’clock, and saw not more than three or four people in the street, but he had scarcely mounted the stairs to his room, when thirty or forty armed men had gathered round the inn door, “and stood together in a plompe whispering and rounding together.” Sadler, as usual, had recourse to the host, “who seemed to be an honest man.” He said that the townsfolk always assembled when any traveller came from the south, because they wanted to hear the news. Sadler admonished him that the town authorities ought not to permit such unlawful assemblies. The host replied that the heads of the town dared not for their lives interfere, but that no harm would come of it. “Quoth he, ‘Ye shall see that I shall cause them to scatter abroad, and every man to go to his home by and by.’ ‘Mary,’ quoth I, ‘if ye do well, ye should set some of them by the 95heels.’ ‘No,’ quoth he, ‘God defend, for so might we bring a thousand in our tops within an hour; but ye shall see me order them well enough with fair words.’” Then he went down into the street with his cap in his hand, and assured them that the new-comer was one of the King’s servants on an embassy to Scotland. The crowd replied that this could not be true, because the King of Scotland was in France, which indicates a very low state of political knowledge. The host, however, persuaded them that his story was true, and they all with one voice asked when the Duke of Norfolk was coming and with what company. The host came back to Sadler to ask his opinion on this subject. Sadler by this time was converted to the host’s policy of fair words, and replied that Norfolk would be at Doncaster on Candlemas Eve, with none but his household servants. This contented the people and they dispersed, but the occurrence had impressed Sadler: “I assure your lordship the people be very tickle, and methinks in a marvellous strange case and perplexity; for they stare and look for things, and fain would have they cannot tell what.” From Darlington Sadler went to Durham, where he met Bowes, and thence to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where the mayor and aldermen maintained very good order; they showed him how strong the town was, and he remained there waiting for a safe-conduct from Scotland^[488].

On his way through Cleveland, Sadler had stayed at Wilton Castle, where Sir William, brother of Sir John Bulmer, was constable. Soon after Sadler left, another traveller from London arrived. This was Thomas Fulthorp, a servant of young Ralph Bulmer, who was bringing a letter from his master to Sir John. Fulthorp told Sir William that the Duke of Norfolk “was not in so good favour with the King as the north country took him to be”; in other words, the Duke’s influence was not sufficient to make the King observe the appointment at Doncaster. Sir William did not believe this, because Sadler had told him the contrary^[489].

Fulthorp then went on to Lastingham, where Sir John Bulmer was living. Soon after he reached home, one of Sir John’s servants brought a terrified letter to Wilton. Ralph, who had gone up to London to discover the King’s real intentions, sent word that thirty ships were being prepared to sail against the north, that Aske and Sir George Darcy had accused several people, including Lord Darcy 96and Sir Robert Constable, and that Norfolk was coming with the worst intentions. Sir John begged his brother to lay a watch along the coasts and to prepare beacons, and warned him not to leave his house “for no fair letters nor words”^[490] Sir William may have been used to his brother’s panics, for he paid so little attention to the letter that he did not even trouble to destroy it^[491].

Although Sir John was afraid of fair letters and words, he was also alarmed because he had not been summoned to meet the Duke of Norfolk. He wrote to Sir Ralph Evers to inquire the meaning of this, and received a comforting reply. The Duke meant to send for him; the arrangement at London was that either Sir John should attend the Duke with ten servants or his brother Sir William with six^[492]. Somewhat relieved, Sir John agreed that his brother should go^[493].

Until he could make up his mind what to do, Sir John had been trying to keep the commons quiet, but his servants attended their musters, and he had made quite a collection of their treasonable bills, with the intention of using them in any way that would serve his own interest. One of these bills originated at Kendal. It was a semi-rhyming production, which urged the commons to insist upon having their old customs and tenant right, “to take your farms by a God’s penny, all gressoms and heightenings to be laid down.” It expressed the general idea that the lords and gentlemen had undertaken a pilgrimage to protect Holy Church, and that the commons would support them if they would grant the commons’ demands concerning rent and ingressum^[494]. It was shown to Sir John by Priestman, a fugitive from Lincolnshire, who asked him how he liked it. Sir John replied, “Marry, very well, for when two dogs fight for a bone the third will take it up; for this will make the gentlemen and the commons fall forth, and the King shall take up the matter.” A second bill came from the south and began, “Good Northern men, stick to your matter, for the lord of Norfolk comes to beguile you”; it continued with a repetition of Norfolk’s promises, which he had not performed. A third bill ordered the men of Cleveland to take Sir William Bulmer and Sir James Strangways, and the men of the Bishopric to take the Earl of Westmorland, Lord Lumley and Lord Neville, while the men of Pickering and Blackmoor would seize Sir John Bulmer, and all the bands would 97advance to capture the Duke and force him to keep the promises which he made at Doncaster^[495].

This scheme had a particular fascination for Sir John. It had originally been devised by Sir Francis Bigod. The plan seems to have been that Richmondshire should rise as soon as Norfolk reached Doncaster. He would probably hurry forward with no troops but his escort, and might be attacked by the men of Cleveland as he went up from the plain of York into the Hambleton Hills about Byland^[496]. Two men of Bilsdale came to Sir John to propose this plot. They brought a list of articles similar to those which were circulating in Richmond “for the swearing of all lords and gentlemen or their sons or else to strike off their heads.” Sir John was to take up his abode at Wilton Castle, when the commons of Guisborough would capture him by arrangement, and he would then go with them to seize the Duke. His wife knew of this plot and did not advocate lenient measures. “She said divers times that if the Duke’s head were off, Sir Ralph Evers’ and Sir Ralph Ellerker’s men might go where they would.”^[497] Before any steps were taken to put this plot into practice, Sir William Bulmer visited Lastingham on his way to Doncaster, and convinced his brother that so long as they remained quiet they had nothing to fear. Sir John handed over to him his collection of bills, in order that they might be laid before the Duke. He reversed his tactics, suppressed the musters of the commons, and for a short time lived in comparative security^[498].

Sir John Bulmer’s is an extreme case of the uneasiness which filled all the northern gentlemen, as they awaited the Duke of Norfolk. They felt that, like the knight of the legend, they had blown the horn without drawing the sword, and they were now unarmed at the mercy of an opponent whose next move was incalculable.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XVII

Note A. “Naught” in Henry VIII’s reign usually meant “evil,” as it does here; similarly “naughty” has a much stronger meaning than at the present day and is equivalent to “wicked,” not to “mischievous.”

Note B. This was not really inconsistent with the fact that Hallam was to attempt to take Hull before Bigod arrived, for after securing the town he intended to advance to meet Bigod at Beverley.

Note C. The original of Sir Francis Bigod’s letter to the bailiffs of Scarborough has disappeared, but it is printed in Speed’s “Great Britain,” book IX, chapter 21, as follows:

98“To the Bailiffs and Commons of the Town of Scarborough.

Wellbeloved, we Francis Bigod, Knight, and John Hallam, Yeoman, in the name of all the commons, command and charge you that ye assemble yourselves together immediately upon receipt hereof, and so take this oath which we here send unto you, and then after in all haste possible to assist and aid these our brethren whom we send to you to keep and make sure the Castle, Town and Port of Scarborough, that no man enter into the same Castle that belongs unto Ralph Evers the younger, Knight, nor any other which did not take full part with the commons at our first and last assembling, in whose name, authority or attorney soever they come, unless they have licence of all the commons; in like manner ye shall truly keep all such ordnance and ship[s] to the use of the commons, with which we charged you at our last being here, and this not to fail, upon pain of your lives. Ye shall refer credence unto these messengers, thus in haste: Fare you well.

From Setterington this Monday Saint Maurus’ day^[499]. Francis Bigod Knight, in the name and by commandment of all the commons.”

Note D. This letter is dated 18 January, but endorsed 17 January, and the latter appears to be the more probable date.

Note E. It was afterwards alleged that Aske had written to Bigod promising that Hallam should be released, but no trace of this letter remains^[500]. The two letters upon which the prosecution based the charge are both fully discussed in the text; they were (1) Sir Robert Constable’s letter for the release of Bigod’s messengers, and (2) Aske’s lost letter for the delay of Hallam’s execution. The prosecution, which was not at all scrupulous in its methods, combined these two letters and asserted that Aske had written either to request or to promise that Hallam should be released, thus producing a charge of treason out of two harmless documents.

Note F. Sir Ralph Ellerker reported that Boynton arrived on the 20th^[501], but he signed a letter at Beverley on the 19th^[502].

Note G. In the summary of the evidence and in Norfolk’s letter it is said that “Hallam” accused the monks of Watton^[503], but this is a mistake; it was the prisoners who were examined at the same time as Hallam who accused them. It is perhaps scarcely necessary to say that the leader of a rebellion is often mentioned loosely as having done actions for which his followers were really responsible. A well-known name is attached by rumour to the deeds or words of obscure persons, and instances have already been given in which Robert Aske was supposed to have written letters or issued manifestoes with which, in fact, he had nothing to do. Hallam’s is a similar case.

Note H. The supplication of the abbot and monks of Sawley is printed among the Letters and Papers of October 1536, but this is evidently too early, as its real date was either the end of December 1536 or the beginning of January 1536–7. The reference in it to the fact that the captain had laid down his office shows that it was written after the second appointment at Doncaster and that it is, in fact, the same document which was carried by Shuttleworth to Sir Thomas Percy. The summary in the Letters and Papers is a good deal more definite than the vague rambling clauses of the original.

99