Chapter XVII · HALLAM AND BIGOD

The leaders of the Pilgrimage undertook an impossible task when they promised at Doncaster to keep the north quiet until Norfolk’s return. When a large region has been in open insurrection for three months, it cannot be restored to order at a word. It is true that the gentlemen did not realise then what they were required to do. They expected Norfolk to return within a month, and they expected that the King would make allowance for the difficulties of their position. They were mistaken in both points. Norfolk’s return was delayed, and Henry was prepared to exact from the north a state of immaculate order to which few counties in England ever attained, even in times of peace. As soon as the Pilgrims allowed themselves to be put off by vague promises their cause was lost. Even if they had exacted a definite agreement with proper guarantees at Doncaster, it would probably have made no difference in the end. Nothing but force could have induced Henry to observe such a treaty. Even if the parliament which they desired had met, it is unlikely that it would have achieved anything. Henry was no Charles I. With Cromwell’s help he knew how to manage parliaments. The Pilgrims’ one chance of success had lain in battle. The two parties were very evenly balanced. Henry had a better general and on the whole better supplies, but the Pilgrims had the advantage in numbers and enthusiasm, and were on their own ground. They did not choose to push the matter to fighting, and they failed.

It is impossible to regret their failure now. If England had been rent by a religious civil war at the very outset of modern history, as the Reformation has rightly been called, she must have been seriously, perhaps fatally, crippled, and prevented from taking her place among the greater European powers. No country which had undergone the strain of the Hundred Years War, followed by the Wars of the Roses, could have borne in succession a third war more terrible than either 56of these. The Pilgrims cannot be accused of weakness when their decision was so truly patriotic, but it was fatal to themselves and their cause. Once that decision was taken the result was inevitable. Henry would observe no treaty with rebels when he could safely repudiate it. The rising of Hallam and Bigod gave him a good excuse, but before that excuse was offered he had already found others. The disturbance at Beverley, the deer-stealing at Rylston, the tithe riots in Cumberland, the restoration of the monks at Sawley—anything was a sufficient pretext for declaring that the King was no longer bound by the terms, and for bringing the champions of the old faith to trial and execution; but the catastrophe was precipitated by an ally of the most fatal kind, a political theorist.

During the progress of the first rising a glimpse has been caught from time to time of Sir Francis Bigod. As might have been expected from his previous history, he was by no means in sympathy with the Pilgrims. His attempted flight and capture have already been described^[267]. The band of commons who took him all unconsciously did their cause a great disservice. Once involved in the rising Sir Francis quickly grew interested. The movement gave him plenty of scope to indulge in his chief passion, which was to reform monasteries. He was far from acting in the spirit of Cromwell’s commissioners. The welfare of the abbeys was his real object, and he made no profit for himself, but his views were in every way peculiar. His activities began about Martinmas (11 November 1536) at the monastery of Guisborough^[268].

The resignation of James Cockerell, Prior of Guisborough, and the appointment of a new prior by the visitors have been mentioned above^[269]. As usually happened in these cases, the new prior accused the old one of having embezzled some of the revenue of the monastery^[270]. Sir Francis Bigod acted in this matter on behalf of Cockerell, who is always called the Quondam of Guisborough^[271]. Having thus a footing in the affairs of the monastery, he made up his mind that the new prior had not been chosen formally according to the laws of God and the old custom, and that the house ought to be reformed. He wrote to consult the Earl of Westmorland on the subject, pointing out that the new prior had been put in only by Cromwell’s authority and that the people did not consider him a true prior. His proposal was that to quiet the country the new prior’s accounts should be made up and 57the prior himself expelled. Then another prior might be chosen “by virtue of the holy comentie and by the assent of all the religious brethren belonging to their chapter.”^[272] In consequence of these disturbances Sir John Bulmer was ordered by the council of York to regulate the affairs of Guisborough, but the prior was not deposed^[273].

Bigod himself was not at the council of York, but before it met his brother Ralph told him that the clergy were to assemble and decide “what they judged to be reformed concerning the faith and for heresy.” After the council was over Aske sent Sir Francis as a captain to Scarborough, probably to look into the affair of Edward Waters. Hallam came from York to Scarborough and reported what the council had resolved upon^[274]. Sir Francis attended the great meeting at Pontefract^[275], and like several of the other gentlemen, he wrote down his opinion on the various questions which were under discussion, “the title of Supreme Head, the statute of suppression, and the taking away the liberties of the Church.”^[276] His “book” made no particular impression at Pontefract. It is never mentioned by the leaders, while the commons looked upon him as one of Cromwell’s agents, and he was even in danger of his life^[277]. Sir Francis, however, had naturally an author’s pride in his own work. It seems to have been much longer and more elaborate than the books of the other gentlemen. The views which it expressed were entirely individual and did not conform to the standards either of Rome or of the government. The author attempted to define “what authority belonged to the Pope, what to a bishop, and what to a king, saying that the head of the Church of England might be a spiritual man, as the archbishop of Canterbury or such, but in no wise the King, for he should with the sword defend all spiritual men in their right.”^[278]

The Quondam of Guisborough read the book, and, by Sir Francis’ account, praised it highly, “saying no man could mend it, and he durst die in the quarrel with Bigod,” and when the author promised him a copy, he said that “he would make as much thereof as of a piece of St Augustine’s works.” The Quondam admitted that he had seen the book, but he denied that he had commended it. He took exception to one passage, at any rate, in which Bigod asserted that the King held his sword immediately from God. The Quondam pointed out that “we hold opinion that the King has his sword 58by permission and delivery of the Church into his hands and not otherwise.” Bigod seems to have accepted the correction^[279].

The Quondam of Guisborough was not Bigod’s only literary friend among the regular clergy. Sir Francis was also a frequent visitor at the monastery of Malton in Rydale, where he was told of a prophesy by the Prior, William Todde^[280]. It was at the Prior’s table that he first heard the rumour that Cromwell was plotting to marry Lady Margaret Douglas and to become the King’s heir^[281].

Sir Francis also lent a hand in the disordered affairs of the monastery of Watton, which was, like Malton, a Gilbertine priory^[282], containing both monks and nuns to the number of between three and four score^[283]. The flight of the Prior appointed by Cromwell and Aske’s intervention to help the deserted religious have already been mentioned^[284]. The absconding Prior had previously held the same office at St Katherine’s, Lincoln^[285]. During his brief term at Watton he had made himself universally disliked; “while he was there he was good to no man and took of Hallam 20 marks where he should have been paid in corn when God should send it; and he gives many unkind words to his tenants in his court, more like a judge than a religious man.”^[286] The monks afterwards declared that it was only the commons who were discontented with the Prior. He had put Hallam out of a farm, and Hallam in revenge during the insurrection brought a number of his soldiers to the monastery, just as the brothers were sitting down to dinner, and ordered them to elect a new prior^[287]. The priors of Ellerton and St Andrew’s, York, were both present, and Hallam advised the canons to nominate the former, Dan James Lawrence^[288]; if they did not obey him, Hallam threatened to plunder their house and make a new prior himself. Thereupon the canons nominated the Prior of Ellerton, but only as a form to satisfy Hallam^[289]. Lawrence never acted as prior, and the canons wrote to Aske to beg him to appoint a new one for them^[290]. By his advice they accepted the sub-prior as the prior’s deputy^[291].

Hugh Langdale, Hallam’s friend, attended his new master the Prior on his flight to London, leaving his wife behind him^[292]. A little before 59Christmas she wrote to tell him how much she had suffered during the rising and to beg him to come back to her. Her letter was carried by Thomas Lownde of Watton Carre, who returned about 26 December. Lownde met Hallam in a house by the Priory gates at Watton and Hallam asked him for the London news. Lownde said that “my lord prior was merry,” to which Hallam rejoined, “no more of that, for an ye call him lord any more thou shalt lose thy head.” He wanted to know what was the opinion of the south about the insurrection. Lownde answered that some Nottingham men with whom he had ridden from London to Stamford, told him that they wished the northern men had come forward, “for then they should have had me to take their parts.” Also when he was in London at a “corser’s” [calcearius, shoemaker] house between Cow Cross and Smithfield, the good man said to him, “Because ye are a northern man ye shall pay but 6d. for your shoes, for ye have done very well there of late: and would to God ye had come to an end, for we were in the same mind that ye were.”^[293]

The sub-prior of Watton, the confessor of the nuns, the vicar of Watton, and Anthony one of the canons, were all heard to say that there would be no real restoration of religion so long as the King held the title of Supreme Head, and that the only way to force him to lay it down was by a new insurrection^[294].

In this hot-bed Hallam’s plans had been flourishing, but at the Beverley meeting on Tuesday 9 January 1536–7 he received a check, and he returned to Watton with the intention of waiting at least until he saw the King’s next move.

While Hallam was being persuaded to trust the King, Bigod was becoming more and more convinced that it would be folly to do so. On the same Tuesday 9 January he set out from Mulgrave to ride to York “for a matter between the Treasury and the old prior of Guisborough.” He had with him a copy of the King’s pardon, which he had been considering very seriously. In discussing it with his friend the Prior of Malton, whom he visited on his journey, he remarked that the pardon would enrage the Scots, who were called “our old ancient enemies.” The Prior, in return for the pardon, showed him a copy of the Pilgrims’ articles, and Sir Francis gave the Prior’s servant two groats to copy it and send the copy after him^[295]. He left Malton for Settrington, where he expected to meet his brother Ralph. Next day, Wednesday 10 January, he arrived at 60Watton, still on his way to York, and went to Hallam’s house. They visited the Priory together, and once more urged the canons to elect a new prior^[296]. Bigod drew up a form for them, in which the present Prior was referred to as “the late prior of St Katherine’s, Lincoln.”^[297] The canons thought that this was not respectful; they sent to Beverley for a notary and had another document drawn up, which appointed James Lawrence to be their prior^[298]. The canons gave this paper to Wade a bachelor of divinity dwelling near by, in order that they might show the new nomination to the commons if there were a fresh insurrection; but they protested that they did this through fear of the commons, and not with any serious idea of deposing their prior^[299].

Hallam and Bigod both supped at the Priory. Bigod produced the King’s pardon and explained his doubts about it. He pointed out that it did not run in the King’s name, but “began as another man’s tale, ‘Albeit the King’s Highness,’” and that it was in the third person throughout, from which he judged that it was really the work of Cromwell^[300] who was higher in favour than ever^[301]. In Bigod’s opinion a pardon in that form would not prevent a sheriff from imprisoning a man and seizing his lands and goods; besides it was dated two days after it had been read^[302]. He also objected to the statement in the pardon that the King had charge of his subjects both body and soul. Sir Francis declared that the King should have no cure of his soul. Hallam, the sub-prior Harry Gill, and two of the canons sat together over the fire while Sir Francis expounded his views to them, but at this point he drew Hallam aside into a window and they talked privately together for a long time^[303].

Sir Francis read to Hallam his book concerning the supreme head of the Church. From that they passed to the question of Hull and Scarborough. Everyone in the countryside, said Bigod, was convinced that the towns ought to be held by the commons until the meeting of the parliament. Moreover he did not believe that the Duke of Norfolk would do any good when he came. It would be better and safer either to drive out of the north any general sent by the King, or to capture Norfolk as he ascended from the plain of York into the hills about Newborough and Byland, and to make him take their oath. Hallam, by his own account, hesitated to attack 61Norfolk^[304]. Others, however, said that they had heard him threaten, if the Duke were captured, to strike off his head^[305]. Leaving Norfolk out of the question, Hallam was soon persuaded to revive his former scheme of capturing Hull and Scarborough. Bigod told him that all the Dales, Swaledale, Wensleydale and the rest, were rising, that Sir Thomas Percy was coming forward from Northumberland, and that the East Riding had no choice but to rise as well^[306]. It is impossible to say how much of this Sir Francis believed himself, but there had been disturbances and bills posted on the church doors in the Dales, and Northumberland had never been quiet since the last insurrection.

Sir Francis Bigod stayed at the Priory of Watton that night, but Hallam went home. Next day, Thursday 11 January, Hallam took William Horskey into his confidence. After repeating to him all that Sir Francis had said, he laid before him their plan of campaign. Hallam was to surprise Hull, while Sir Francis seized Scarborough; they would then meet at Beverley and march to take Pontefract. The day for the attempt was not yet appointed^[307].

Bigod left Watton on Friday 12 January and rode to Settrington. On Saturday 13 January he sent a servant to bid Hallam come to Settrington. Hallam arrived on Sunday 14 January, and found that Ralph Fenton of Ganton and “the friar of St Robert’s” were also there. Bigod told them that he had news of a rising in Durham and another in the west country. Lord Latimer had fled, and the commons had spoiled the property of Archdeacon Franklin and Robert Bowes, whom they accused of betraying them^[308]. Dr John Pickering had sent news of the attack on Lancaster Herald at Durham^[309]. Fenton and Hallam both agreed that Yorkshire must rise too^[310].

Hallam returned to Watton on Monday 15 January. That day he was visited by three Beverley men, Richard Wilson, Roger Kitchen, and John Francis a baker. Francis was a quiet man with dangerous friends. The day before, Wilson and Kitchen had asked him to go with them “as it were a-mumming,” to break up an assembly of “the most ancient men” of Beverley, who were making merry at Catherell’s house, “because they were of a contrary faction in a dispute concerning the privilege of the town.” Francis refused to go with them, and when on Monday they invited him to accompany them to Calkhill he was suspicious, but they assured him that their 62only object was to make merry with Hallam, and Francis agreed to go with them. They met Hallam at Hutton Cranswick, and all drank together at Mr Wade’s^[311] house. Francis observed that Wilson and Hallam talked together privately for some time. When the Beverley men went out to get their horses, Hallam came with them. On the way to the stable he told them that Sir Francis Bigod had sent the friar of St Robert’s to Durham to find out whether there was a new rising. Francis did not like this conversation, and to change the subject he asked Hallam to sell him “half a score of wheat.” Hallam replied that he would pass through Beverley on his way to Hull next day, and they could talk over the bargain then. After Francis had mounted, the other three went into the stable together and talked for a long time, until Francis called to them to come. Wilson and Hallam in the stable revealed their plans to Kitchen. Wilson promised to bring “a great sort out of Beverley” as soon as he heard that Hallam had set out to take Hull. Hallam asked Kitchen to be ready on receiving his message to go to Holderness and desire Richard Wharton, John Thomson, the bailiff of Brandsburton, William Barker and William Nicholson to meet Hallam in Hull and drink a quart of wine with him. At last the Beverley men set out for home with the impatient Francis^[312].

While Hallam was drinking and plotting in Mr Wade’s house at Hutton Cranswick two messengers sent by Sir Francis Bigod had arrived at Hallam’s home. Not finding him there, they went to the Priory, where they gave a man 2d. to bring Hallam to them. The messengers represented themselves as Bigod’s servants, but one of them was Friar John Pickering in disguise^[313]. Before long Hallam came to the Priory and they delivered to him a letter from Sir Francis. He sent news that Durham and Richmondshire were up, that he would attempt to seize Scarborough next day, and that Hallam must take Hull at the same time and meet him at Beverley on Wednesday^[314].

All this was read aloud and supplemented by the messengers in the presence of the sub-prior, the Prior of Ellerton, Dr Swinburne and other canons of Watton assembled in a chamber called the “Hal sied” [Hall Side]. After the reading of the letter, Hallam picked out two of the convent servants, Anthony Wright or West and Lancelot Wilkinson, to accompany him to Hull next day, and directed the sub-prior to send them and a third, Clement Hudson, and 63to provide them with money, but they were not to bring horses or harness. His men were to enter the town in small groups of two or three, like market folks; they were to go to the market, and begin bargaining for goods until they heard Hallam cry, “Come hither to me all good commons!” whereupon they must join him and take the town. After making these arrangements Hallam left the Priory. The canons were naturally somewhat fluttered, but either from fear or from sympathy they obeyed Hallam^[315], and the cellarer, Thomas Lather, delivered to the chosen men 3s. 4d. to last them for two days^[316].

There was no time to be lost if Hull was to be taken next day, for it was already nearly 7 o’clock at night^[317]. Taking up his station at the Priory gates, Hallam began to despatch messengers. He sent Andrew Cante and John Lowrey, labourers of Watton, to Kitchen at Beverley to bid him deliver the message that he knew of in Holderness. John Prowde was despatched to bid William Horskey, Philip Uty and Thomas Lownde to be at Beverley next day by sunrise. All were directed to meet Hallam at Beverley next day as soon as they had done their errands^[318].

Early next morning, Tuesday 16 January, the little band set out from Watton in the dark in order to be at Beverley by sunrise. Hallam wore “a privy coat of fence made with many folds of linen cloth rosined, and a privy skull on his head, a sword and a buckler.”^[319]

At William Cooper’s house in Beverley Hallam met Uty, Horskey and Langdale; he read Bigod’s letter to them and sent them on to Hull to open communications with some friends in the town^[320]. Although these men were Hallam’s chosen confederates, they were not very reliable. Langdale said that “what he did was for fear of his life, for Hallam was so cruel and fierce a man amongst his neighbours that no man durst disobey him.”^[321] Both Langdale and Horskey distrusted Sir Francis Bigod, while Uty knew Hallam but slightly. As they rode to Hull together their hearts failed them, and they resolved to betray Hallam to the magistrates. After some discussion they decided to warn William Crockey, Robert Grey and Stephen Clare of Hallam’s plot^[322]; they would ask them to inform the mayor without mentioning who had given the warning.

The first person whom they visited was Crockey, the deputy-customer. 64Their pretext was that they wanted to buy a tun of wine, which had been ordered by the sub-prior of Watton^[323]. It was now about 11 o’clock, and as Hallam had intended to be in Hull by 9^[324], the informers knew that they must make haste. Langdale and Uty put Horskey forward, and he, “abashed and trembling,” took Crockey apart. Their embarrassment alarmed the deputy-customer so much that he exclaimed, “What news? How do ye all in your parts?” Horskey answered, “Naught^[325], for we were commanded yesternight about midnight, pain of death, to be here this day, and for to take the town, as I suppose.”^[326]

Crockey at once went and told Robert Grey, who said “he trowed all would be nought, wherefore let every man do his best.” Not finding much support in this enigmatic remark, Crockey went next to Mr Johnson, an alderman, who took him to the mayor’s house. There they found that they had been forestalled, as “one Fowbery” was already laying the matter before the mayor^[327]. This man was John Fowbery of Newbold, a servant of the Earl of Surrey^[328]. He had taken part in the first insurrection^[329], and was in Hallam’s confidence^[330]. By the time Crockey arrived, Fowbery had disclosed everything to the mayor and aldermen^[331]; and they all went to their houses to arm and prepare to take Hallam^[332].

Meanwhile the plot was going badly. On entering Hull Hallam met William Nicholson of Preston, who had often promised, in the case of a fresh rising, to join him with 100 or 200 men from Holderness. It was Nicholson who had suggested the plan of smuggling men into Hull on market-day as if to attend the market, and Hallam had sent Kitchen to warn him of the attempt the night before^[333]. By ill-luck Nicholson had set out for Hull before Kitchen arrived^[334]. He had not received the message and therefore had brought no men. Hallam told him to see what friends he had in the town who could be trusted in the matter^[335]. The bailiff of Snaith had sent to Hallam after Christmas to let him know that if he made any fresh attempt all the commons of that part would join him, and it would seem that Hallam had sent a message to Snaith which also miscarried, but this is not certain.

65Thus Hallam found himself with no support but his own small band. The attitude of the commons in the town was hostile, and he resolved to abandon the enterprise. He told the men who were with him to go home, mounted his horse, and rode out of the Beverley Gate to a watering-place beside a windmill. Looking back, he saw the town gates were “a-sparring” [being fastened]. At the watering-place he met Marshall, clerk of Beswick, and John Fowbery the traitor. Marshall, who really sympathised with Hallam, exclaimed, “Fie! will ye go your ways and leave your men behind you^[336]?” The situation was a very tempting one. Hallam was mounted and free to join Bigod, or, if all else failed, to make his way to Scotland. He had warned his men, and the town gates were on the point of being shut. To go back was certain death. This history contains many examples of weakness and betrayal, but from time to time they are redeemed by some act of high courage and faith, such as that which Hallam now achieved. He turned and rode back to Hull.

The traitor Fowbery played his part to the last; exclaiming, “And I will turn again to seek for some of my neighbours that be there too,” he rode ahead of Hallam to the gates, where two of the aldermen, William Knolles and John Eland, were giving orders^[337]. These were the aldermen who had surrendered Hull to the rebels^[338]. Fowbery called out, “An you look not shortly of your man Hallam, he will subdue you all.” Eland answered, “I know him not,” and Fowbery said, “Yon is he that is on horseback in the yeatts [gates] and ye may see the people assemble hastily till him.” Eland grasped Knolles by the arm, crying, “Go way, for we will have him,” and they went up to Hallam together^[339]. He, from outside, asked them to let his neighbours come out before they barred the gates^[340]. The two aldermen came out and asked him his name; he answered, “My name is Hallam.” Knolles said, “Then thou art the false traitor that I look for.”^[341] The aldermen were standing one on each side of his horse, and at the word they both attacked him with their daggers, but his coat of fence saved him. There was a general struggle. Hallam’s neighbours and the city guard both ran out to help their respective champions. Knolles was knocked down, but rescued by his men, and seized Hallam’s companions. Eland clung to Hallam, and, striking at him, cut his bridle rein. He was afraid that Hallam would escape, but the horse fell into the Busse ditch, and Hallam was 66forced to dismount. He drew his sword and “many stripes were taken among them.” They “bickered together” until they were both badly wounded and Hallam was at length captured^[342]. There were only two men with him, Thomas Water and John Prowde^[343]. As the prisoners were being led through the streets, William Nicholson attempted to create a diversion in their favour. He cried to the guards, “Jesus! What mean ye? Will ye murder me now?” and there was another fray, in which Nicholson was wounded and captured^[344]. So ended the disastrous attempt to recover Hull.

Bigod’s letter declared that he had received positive news that the commons of Durham and Richmond intended to rise on 16 January, the day on which the simultaneous attempts on Hull and Scarborough were made. These messages have not been preserved, but Sir Francis acted on them at once, and on Monday 15 January his servants were despatched in every direction to call out men for the new rising. Besides the two who went to Watton, one was sent to Bigod’s friend the Prior of Malton, to order a muster there next day^[345]. Another was sent to Durham with letters for Auckland, Staindrop, Richmond and the city of Durham, enclosing a new oath^[346]. This man arrived at Brancepeth on Wednesday 17 January^[347]. On the same Monday Bigod summoned to him William Levening of Acklam, and caused him to take the new oath. He told him the news from Durham and Richmond, and ordered him to send a summons to a muster at Borough next day to all the neighbouring constables^[348]. At night the beacon at Settrington was lighted^[349].

The nearest gentleman was George Lumley of Thwing, who was just recovering from an illness. Richard Simpson, the constable of Thwing, came to him as he lay in bed on Tuesday morning, 16 January, with news of the summons and the beacon. Lumley, his wife, and the constable, were all thrown into great perplexity, as they did not know whether this was a muster on behalf of the King or against him. At first Lumley thought of sending a servant to make inquiries, but in the end he decided to go himself, “for an if the assembly were for the King, ... it was his duty to be there. And if it were about any new business of commotion, then he thought it was best for him to go thither also for to stay them, or else it 67might be laid to his charge afterward that seeing there were few gentlemen else in that quarter that he did not endeavour himself to stay them.... Thinking at the least way, if he could do no good among them, he would do no harm.” He set out, therefore, taking with him two servants^[350].

At Borough they met a body of men, who conducted them to an assembly of about thirty or forty persons on a little “howe” [hill]. These men had no idea why they were summoned, but had come in response to the beacon. Presently Sir Francis Bigod appeared at the head of about a hundred horsemen. George Lumley tried to draw him aside to question him, but Bigod said that “he would commune with no man of any thing but that the whole company should be privy unto.” Thereupon he mounted the hillock and addressed those who had assembled. George Lumley afterwards gave the substance of his speech in a medley of oratio recta and oratio obliqua:—

“He declared to the people that there were many causes that they had need to look upon, or else they should be all shortly destroyed; for the gentlemen of the country (said he) had deceived the commons. And said that the Bishopric and Cleveland were up already and would go forward to have their articles fulfilled, trusting that you will not now leave them in the dust seeing they took your part afore, and it is in the defence of all your weals. For my Lord of Norfolk is coming down with twenty thousand men to take Hull and Scarborough and other haven towns, which shall be our destruction unless we prevent him therein and take them before. And so I and my fellow Hallam purpose to do, for we are both appointed to meet at Beverley this night and so to raise the country and go forward to Hull^[351]. And I think it necessary that you command Mr Lumley here to go with you to Scarborough to take the Castle and town and keep the port and haven from any such as should come in there to be your destruction, as I have written a letter to the bailiffs of Scarborough that they should help thus to do with the aid of you the commons that I shall send unto them.”^[352]

Sir Francis then brought out two letters, which he gave to Lumley, charging him on pain of death to deliver them. One was to the bailiffs of Scarborough, and the other was to the dowager countess of Northumberland to request her to summon Sir Thomas Percy to come forward with all his men, with the promise that Bigod and the commons would restore his lands to him. Lumley opened and read the second letter, and then despatched one of his servants with it.

68After giving him the letters, Bigod continued his speech:

“Also ye are deceived by a colour of a pardon, for it is called a pardon that ye have and it is none but a proclamation.”

At this point he read aloud a copy of the pardon, and then went on:

“It is no more but as if I would say unto you, the King’s grace will give you a pardon, and bade you go to the Chancery and fetch it. And yet the same is no pardon. Also here ye are called rebells, by the which ye shall knowledge yourselves to have done against the King, which is contrary to your oath.”

The commons, who had always been suspicious of the pardon, were very much moved by this. One cried out, “The King hath sent us the fawcet and keepeth the spigot himself!” while another said that “as for the pardon it makes no matter whether they had any or not, for they never offended the King nor his laws, wherefore they should need to have any pardon.” After the clamour had died down, Bigod proceeded:

“A parliament is appointed as they say, but neither the place where nor the time when it should be kept is appointed. And also here is that the King should have cure both of your body and soul, which is plain false, for it is against the Gospel of Christ, and that will I justify even to my death. And therefore if ye will take my part in this and defend it, I will not fail you so long as I live to the uttermost of my power; and who will so do assure me by your hands and hold them up.”

Thereupon all present held up their hands with a great shout and cried that they would strike off the head of any man who did not do as they did. A tall man dressed like a priest, who had come with Bigod, said that “if they went not forward, all was lost that they had done before, for all was but falsehood that was wrought against them.” He was probably one of the ever-zealous friars of Knaresborough. Bigod promised the commons that “the fat priests’ benefices of the south that were not resident upon the same and money of the suppressed abbeys should find the poor soldiers that were not able to bear their own charges.” He told Lumley and the commons who were to remain with him that he had already summoned the wapentake of Dickering to join them^[353].

Then Sir Francis rode away with his horsemen in the direction of Hull, and Lumley was left to occupy Scarborough with about forty men. His position was a very awkward one. Bigod’s speech must have made a great impression even on Lumley, as he was able to 69repeat so much of it three weeks afterwards, and it had roused intense enthusiasm among the commons. As Sir Francis disappeared they exclaimed, “Blessed was the day that Sir Francis Bigod, Ralph Fenton, John Hallam and the friar of St Robert’s met together, for an if they had not set their heads together this matter had never been bolted out.” They were ready to be led on any enterprise, but unfortunately George Lumley was far from being ready to lead them. In character he bore a marked resemblance to one of Sir Walter Scott’s weaker-minded heroes, such as Edward Waverley; he was a well-meaning but ordinary young man, quite unequal to the task of making up his mind, or assuming a grave responsibility. He had hesitated before setting out, and his vague hopes that it might prove to be a muster for the King, or that he might induce the commons to disperse, were now at an end. In all the previous course of the rebellion he had never done anything on his own initiative. At the present moment, although his intentions were loyal to the King, he found himself with a single servant surrounded by forty excited and resolute countrymen. The number was not great for taking a fortress, but it was too many for him to persuade or command to depart. Accordingly he submitted to circumstances and set out for Scarborough. On the way, at a place called Monyhouse, he found a muster of the Dickering men, as Sir Francis had expected. They were all ready to march to Scarborough, but Lumley would take with him only two men from each township, and dismissed the rest to their homes. Even with this limitation his force was raised to six or seven score, too many for Lumley’s comfort, but too few to please his followers, who insisted on summoning Pickering Lythe to muster next day at Spittels to give them aid if they should need it^[354].

At the same time they sent to the Priory of Bridlington for help. The prior asserted that he ordered his men not to obey the summons and armed them in order that they might resist the rebels if they came that way, but he was accused of arming them for and not against Lumley^[355].

Lumley’s company entered Scarborough without encountering the least opposition. Lumley issued a proclamation that no one should take anything without paying for it, and that no revenge should be attempted against the men who had defended the castle during the last rebellion. By this time it must have been evening, and he went to his lodging for the night, but the commons were not yet 70satisfied. They were afraid that forces might make their way into the castle, which was unoccupied. In order to secure it, they wished to take up their quarters in it. Lumley would not permit this. He replied that “he would not be of their counsel to enter into the castle, for it was the King’s house, and there had they nor he nothing to do. And their oath was to do no thing against the King.” In the face of this argument the commons did not insist upon entering the castle, but they set a watch round it, in order that no one should surprise it. Lumley went back to his lodging, where he found some more of his servants. About midnight he sent one of them to old Sir Ralph Evers to warn him that the castle was guarded, and to assure him that Lumley would do his best to persuade the commons to go home quietly, and that he hoped in a short time young Sir Ralph would be able to occupy the castle without any opposition.

Next morning, Wednesday 17 January, Lumley and the commons met the bailiffs of the town at the Grey Friars. The town officers took the oath to be true to the commons according to a new form prescribed by Sir Francis Bigod, “the effect whereof was in all things like the former oath with this addition, that no man should give counsel to any man to sit still until such time as they had obtained their former wishes.”^[356] Bigod seems to have drawn up several forms of the oath; another draft enjoined the commons to keep their former oath, “and not urging any to join them, to prepare themselves to battle against the undoers of Christ’s Church and the common wealth.”^[357]

After administering the oath the commons demanded that three of Sir Ralph Evers’ servants should be surrendered to them. These were Guy Fishe, Lancelot Lacy and one Lockwood. The commons had resolved to put them to death on account of their part in the defence of the castle. Lockwood and probably the other two also were present at the Grey Friars. By “fervent request and long entreaty” George Lumley prevailed upon his men to spare them.

The commons next resolved to enter the castle, but here again the exhortations of Lumley and the bailiffs of the town induced them to give up their purpose for the present.

By this time Lumley and his followers must have been heartily tired of one another, and accordingly he met with no opposition when he said that he must go home and attend to his own business. 71John Wyvell was chosen captain in his place, and Lumley prepared to depart. He said that Wyvell had enough men to keep the town, and ordered his own company to return with him; he also took Lancelot Lacy, one of the threatened men. Wyvell complained that he would be “left very sklender,” and that men from the neighbouring villages must be summoned to supply the place of Lumley’s men. Lumley promised to send him aid next day and rode off.

Lumley went first to Spittels, the place appointed for the muster of Pickering Lythe. On the way he met small bands of commons going to or returning from the muster. He told them that their fellows had resolved to hold Scarborough, and ordered them to go to its defence that night and to return home next day, as he would then send more men. By the time he reached Spittels those who had attended the muster had all gone home, for he had purposely delayed his arrival. He felt himself now in a position to dismiss his own men, and therefore ordered them all to depart to their houses and not to rise in response to any summons or beacon unless he sent for them in his own name. In the meanwhile he promised to lay their doubts before the Duke of Norfolk and “know his pleasure therein.” They said that they would not rise at the summons of any man but Lumley himself or Sir Thomas Percy. Lumley urged them to make no exceptions—“if ye should rise at his calling or any other man’s then were I in a sore case, for then should I be left alone.” But they still persisted that if Sir Thomas summoned them they must rise; on this understanding they disbanded, and George Lumley went home^[358].

Sir Francis Bigod was sufficiently clear-sighted to see that Hull was the point on which his energies must be concentrated. With Hull in his possession, the King could overawe all the East Riding, where disaffection was most active, but if the town were in the hands of the commons, it would be a substantial guarantee for the forthcoming parliament. Accordingly on the first day of the rising he set out to support Hallam’s attack on Hull, which was of vital importance to his success, leaving only a small party to occupy Scarborough, which was a point of much less value, as the experience of the last insurrection had proved. In all his movements his characteristic qualities appear. He had very good ideas, but he was quite incapable of carrying them out. He could see what might be done, and what ought to be done, but he had no power of organisation. Having decided that Scarborough ought to be taken, he despatched 72the first gentleman whom he encountered to take it, without stopping to consider whether his agent was capable of performing the task.

After Sir Francis left Borough on Tuesday morning, his movements cannot be definitely traced for the next two days, but he had given orders for a muster at Bainton, a place within a few miles of Beverley, on Wednesday 17 January^[359]. During these two days there was great activity among the responsible leaders of the Pilgrimage. The news of the attempt on Hull spread quickly. On the very day, Tuesday 16 January, the mayor of Hull sent to the Ellerkers for help, and they passed on the news to Darcy. Bigod’s letter had been found on Hallam, and thus they learnt of the attack on Scarborough^[360]. Sir Robert Constable received warning of what had taken place the same day, and wrote about it to Aske from his house at Holme in Spalding Moor. He attributed the rising to the alarm caused by the printed answer to the first petition, and suggested that Aske should come to him and that they might ride to Hull together to declare the King’s true answer^[361]. At the same time he sent out several manifestoes to the disaffected parts of the country, assuring all men that the parliament, coronation and convocation were to be held at Whitsuntide in York; “wherefore, good and loving neighbours, let us stay ourselves and resist those who are disposed to spoil.”^[362] He explained that he was prevented by illness from coming in person to reassure them, as he was suffering from a severe attack of gout^[363].

One of these manifestoes was sent to his son Sir Marmaduke Constable, who despatched it to Thwing. George Lumley sent it on to Scarborough on Thursday 18 January, with orders that the commons there must all depart to their homes, after receiving such a favourable answer^[364].

Aske was at Osgodby on Wednesday 17 January, where he received Constable’s letter. He was very much distressed by the news, as he saw that it threatened to destroy the hopes of success which he still entertained. He obeyed Sir Robert’s summons and set out for Holme, after forwarding the letter to Darcy with a request for advice and an exhortation that Darcy would maintain order in his own quarter^[365]. Darcy replied immediately that although 73he heard very dreadful rumours he was able to keep his own parts quiet, in spite of the fact that he was confined to his bed^[366]. Darcy also sent congratulations to Hull on the capture of the rebels^[367].

On the morning of Thursday 18 January Sir Francis Bigod reached Bainton, and held a muster there^[368]. By this time he had of course received news of Hallam’s failure, and his first object was to rescue the prisoners in Hull. From Bainton he wrote to Sir Robert Constable, enclosing the new oath. He stated the reasons for the new rebellion, and begged Constable to send him advice as there was no man whom the commons trusted so much^[369]. He despatched three men to Hull to demand the release of Hallam and the other prisoners, and awaited the replies to both messages at Bainton^[370].

Sir Robert Constable’s answer was soon brought. Aske was with him at Holme and they both sent remonstrances. Their position was a very difficult one. If they disowned the new movement uncompromisingly, they would forfeit their influence over the commons, with the result that they would be regarded as traitors and their words would have no effect. As they were sincerely opposed to Bigod’s rising, they wished to check it and prevent ill consequences, not merely to demonstrate their own loyalty. Accordingly the gist of their letters was an assurance that the King’s pardon was genuine, that the parliament and the coronation were to be held in York, and that the Duke of Norfolk was coming with only a small train.

Aske’s letter was addressed to the commons, and warned them that “Bigod intended to have destroyed the effects of our petitions”; and that they had done very foolishly in listening to him. However, Aske would represent to the King that they had acted through ignorance and fear, and if they dispersed quietly he did not doubt that the King would pardon them^[371]. Sir Robert Constable wrote to Bigod. He repeated the assurances of the King’s good intentions. He could not come himself because he had gout, but Aske was willing to come to them and tell them what he had heard from the King’s own lips. The commons ought to be satisfied with this and remain quiet until Norfolk’s coming. The present rising was contrary to the appointment at Doncaster, and it was a bad time of year for fighting. The best thing that Bigod could do would be to send the commons home again^[372].

74These letters were received by Sir Francis Bigod at Bainton and when they were read aloud it was agreed that a safe-conduct should be sent to Aske, in order that he might come and speak to them. Just then Woodmancey came to Bigod with a private message from Beverley, and orders were given that the host should enter the town^[373]. Old Sir Ralph Ellerker had taken up his quarters there at the first alarm^[374], but he was not able to offer any resistance, and Bigod entered Beverley at about four o’clock on Thursday afternoon with between three and four hundred men^[375].

There he received a letter from Sir Oswald Wolsthrope commanding the commons to disperse^[376]. Bigod replied that the commons would not trust Sir Oswald, because he and the other gentlemen had deceived them before^[377]. With this reply he sent a letter to the Dean and Chapter of York^[378], to whom he announced that the commons assembled at Beverley demanded their support^[379]. This letter shows once more Bigod’s extraordinary mixture of insight and stupidity. The commons are represented as saying that “all will be undone if they do not go forward whilst they yet have pledges for the performance of their petitions and are not in captivity like the men of Lincolnshire and even of Hull. It behoves the clergy to prevent the danger, for the King understands from the gentlemen that the Church began the last assembly.” No warning could have been more true, yet no attempt to avert the danger could have been more futile than Bigod’s. When he wrote these letters his plans were all in confusion, for the one to the Dean and Chapter indicates that he intended to advance on York, while in the other to Sir Oswald Wolsthrope he said that his forces would withdraw into Richmondshire, there to draw up a petition to the King^[380]. His bewilderment was natural, for his prospects were becoming more and more gloomy.

Young Sir Ralph Ellerker, who was in Hull, made two of Bigod’s messengers prisoners, on the ground that they were traitors and had no safe-conduct, and sent the third back with an answer which he thought was enough to terrify Sir Francis out of Beverley. Old Sir Ralph sent to his son for help; the latter promised to be with him next day at noon and gave orders for the mustering of Holderness^[381]. Bigod had written to Rudston, who had been the captain of Holderness in the last rising, but Rudston replied that he was 75pledged to the King and went to join Ellerker. Sir Robert Constable also wrote to Rudston, as soon as he heard that Rudston was going to Hull. He commissioned him to ask Ellerker to come to Holme with a copy of “the King’s letter,” in order to pacify the commons. Sir Robert was keeping a watch upon Bigod’s movements and had his men in readiness, but he had just written to Bigod and would not stir until he had received an answer. His advice was that Ellerker should set free Bigod’s messengers, as they had only done their master’s bidding^[382].

As nothing but messages of disapproval and news of hostile musters poured in upon Sir Francis at Beverley that night, he and his followers entirely lost heart, while old Sir Ralph Ellerker and the loyalists of the town were much encouraged. Young Sir Ralph was to arrive next morning, Friday 19 January, but long before he was expected his father decided that the forces in the town were strong enough to attack without further delay. No details of the fray have been preserved, but before the late winter dawn had broken, old Sir Ralph and his men had chased the rebels out of Beverley and made sixty-two prisoners^[383].

Young Sir Ralph, who had sent to Lincolnshire for reinforcements and to the King for ammunition, mustered the men of Cottingham and Holderness within two miles of the town before 8 o’clock in the morning, and arrived at Beverley too late to do anything but congratulate the victors and carry off the prisoners to Hull. Gratifying as the victory was, young Sir Ralph, in his report to the King, criticised some of the proceedings. He was disappointed that no one had been killed; if he had been there no quarter should have been given. It was also a great blemish that Sir Francis Bigod had been able to make his escape; no one knew whither he had fled^[384]. Nevertheless, in spite of these drawbacks, the danger in the East Riding was at an end, and it remained only to spread the news up and down the country^[385].

After Sir Francis Bigod’s flight the papers which he left in his room at Beverley were seized by Matthew Boynton^[386], son-in-law of Sir John Bulmer^[387]. Among them was the “book” containing his opinion on the supremacy and on other points of church government, which Sir Francis had read to Hallam^[388], and some letters directed to 76the Lord Mayor of York, which were forwarded by the town officers of Beverley with the news that Bigod had “left early in the morning,” and a warning that the city and neighbourhood of York must be kept in order^[389].

Boynton wrote to his father-in-law to warn him that Bigod was thought to have fled to Cleveland with the intention of raising the commons there. It would be a most acceptable piece of service to the King if Sir John could capture him^[390]. Boynton did not know the painful situation in which Sir John was placed. It is tolerably certain that Sir Francis Bigod had revealed his intentions to Bulmer, who was his uncle by marriage. Margaret, Sir John’s second wife, William Staynhus his chaplain, and Ralph his eldest son by his first marriage, also knew of the scheme. His wife and the chaplain urged him to join his nephew, saying that the commons wanted but a head, that if one rose all would, and that if the other gentlemen rose he must do the like^[391]. Sir John himself had no inclination for rising. He was the lessee of the suppressed nunnery of Rosedale^[392], and had been taken by the commons with violence in the first insurrection^[393], in which he had played no particular part. He was a nervous, excitable man, very unfit for any dangerous enterprise. Yet in consequence of his temperament Sir Francis’ doubts about the validity of the pardon made a great impression upon him. He would not join his nephew’s hopeless attempt, but he sent his son Ralph up to London in order to discover the King’s real purpose. When he received Boynton’s message he was anxiously expecting news from Ralph^[394]. In the circumstances it is not surprising that he did not take Sir Francis.

The King was well informed as to the progress of events. On Thursday 18 January Aske sent news of Hallam’s attempt, Bigod’s musters, and the agitation in the north and west. He reported that the commons of the north and west “repaired to no worshipful men,” but made their fellows captains. All the gentlemen were doing their best to quiet the people, and he begged the King to send Norfolk immediately^[395]. On the same day the mayor of Hull sent the King a full report of Hallam’s attempt and the arrival of Bigod’s messengers, enclosing the first examinations of six of Hallam’s men and John Eland’s own account of Hallam’s capture^[396]. Since its 77capitulation to the Pilgrims, the town of Hull had been in disgrace with the King, and trade had been interrupted^[397]. Consequently the burgesses were delighted to have this opportunity of re-establishing their credit with the government. Other letters spread the tidings of the rebels’ defeat^[398].

The news from Scarborough was equally favourable to the King. George Lumley, anxious to prove his ignorance of Bigod’s plot, resolved to surrender to the Duke of Norfolk. He has been compared to a hero of Sir Walter Scott’s, but unfortunately real life does not show the happy turns of a romance; there was no quick-witted outlaw or faithful gipsy to spirit him away to Scotland and safety in spite of himself, and in the innocence of his heart he went straight to his death^[399].

The leaders of the commons at Scarborough were Ralph Fenton and John Wyvell. They must have heard of Bigod’s flight after they were abandoned by Lumley, and finding themselves completely deserted by their leaders and without support, they offered no resistance when young Sir Ralph Evers occupied the town. The date of this is not certain, but he probably set out as soon as Lumley surrendered himself. Sir Ralph imprisoned Wyvell and Fenton, but used no further severity. He “gave the people comfortable words,” and induced them to promise obedience and “to wear a cross of St George.” The wearing of these crosses was a sign that they thankfully accepted the pardon and meant to be as loyal as before the insurrection^[400]. Gregory Conyers, who seems to have been at court about Twelfth Night, on his return to the north spread the story that “the King himself of Sunday after Twelfthtide ... openly in the presence of all noblemen and worshipful men of the country and many other ... laid his hand of his breast and swore by the faith that he did bear to God and St George he had not only forgiven and pardoned all his subjects of the north by his writing under seal, but also freely in his heart.”^[401] The neighbourhood of Scarborough appeared to be quiet, but for fear of disturbances in other parts Evers garrisoned and prepared the castle^[402].

Sir Ralph Evers had prudently taken only two prisoners, but at Hull there were over seventy, and the first question which confronted the gentlemen there was how to deal with them. All those who 78had come to the defence of Hull met on Saturday 20 January to consider the matter. There were now in prison at Hull Hallam, Kitchen and six of their company, Bigod’s two messengers, and the sixty-two prisoners who had been taken at Beverley; it must have been difficult to find room in the town to keep so many safely. It was impossible to release Hallam and his fellows, but while some of the gentlemen advised that all the prisoners should be kept in ward, others wished to keep only the leaders of the Beverley captives, while others again thought that all might be released on bail. Monketon, who was sent by Robert Aske, strongly urged the last-named course upon them, and it was finally adopted, partly because it was the most convenient, partly because there were no prisoners of importance and all declared that they had come against their wills, and partly because the responsibility for it could be laid upon Aske^[403].

The result of the attempt on Hull was to bring about the very thing that the commons had feared, namely, the fortification of the town by the King. When the prisoners had been disposed of, young Sir Ralph Ellerker made a full report to Henry, with a request that gunners and gunpowder might be sent to him, and that he might be allowed a body of two hundred horsemen until the country was in better order^[404]. The request was justified by the fact that Bigod’s agitation had spread much further than the East Riding. Bigod believed that Durham, Richmondshire and the west were on the point of rising; when the immediate danger had been averted at Hull and Scarborough it still remained to be seen whether there might not be a more formidable host coming from the north.

On Wednesday 17 January two of Bigod’s messengers to the north were taken. Sir William Mallory discovered one of them near Northallerton, and sent to the Duke of Norfolk a letter from Bigod, which was found in the man’s possession, urging the commons of Swaledale to rise^[405]. The other messenger took a letter and a copy of the new oath to Durham, and delivered them to the bailiff and Cuthbert Richardson. The officers of the town returned answer that the men of Durham had sworn to rise for no one but the Earl of Westmorland or the King, and that they would “stick to the King’s pardon.” As the Bishop of Durham was still at Norham, they sent the letter and the messenger to the Earl of Westmorland at Brancepeth^[406]. The Earl was rather an incapable character, but at 79least he had the wisdom to know his own weakness. Having heard a rumour that he was to be made warden of one of the Marches, he had hurried south to his uncle Lord Sandys, in order, if possible, to prevent the dreaded appointment^[407]. He left an efficient deputy in the person of his wife Katharine, daughter of the late Duke of Buckingham, who “rather playeth the part of a knight than of a lady.”^[408] When the bailiff of Durham brought Bigod’s letter and messenger to the countess on Thursday 18 January, she gave orders for the apprehension of any others who might come, thanked the bailiff, and sent a copy of the letter to her husband, directing him to show it to the Lord Privy Seal. Her conclusion was, “I and all honest men long for your coming home.” The letter was laid before the Privy Council^[409], but in spite of the Countess’ vigour, when the townsfolk of Durham heard what their bailiff had done, they seized him and threatened to strike off his head if the messenger was not released, and the bailiff was obliged to contrive that the prisoner should be set free.^[410]

It was not Bigod’s letters, however, which were the real danger in the north, but a secret agitation going on among the commons. Its originators are unknown. Proclamations and manifestos appeared and passed from hand to hand, or were fastened on church doors, no one knowing whence they came. Several of these manifestos were seized and sent to the King. They were all of a popular character, and show no trace of Bigod’s influence. One of them was headed, “These be articles that men may perceive that this entreaty is but feigned policy to subdue the commons withal,” and proceeded to show that the terms made at Doncaster had not been kept. The abbeys had been restored only by the commons, and many of the farmers had sold the abbey lands and fled out of the country. A parliament had been promised in York “on the twentieth day,” but it had never been held. Cromwell was as high in favour as ever. No man was pardoned unless he would acknowledge the King to be Supreme Head of the Church. Aske had received great rewards in London for betraying the commons. Hull was being fortified. Therefore if the commons would save themselves, they must rise at once and make their own leaders, trusting the gentlemen no more^[411]. This may have been the bill sent up to Norfolk by Lord Scrope from Bolton on 27 January^[412].

On Friday 19 January a bill appeared in Richmond ordering the 80commons of every township to rise on pain of death, to seize the gentlemen and to make them swear upon the mass-book to maintain the profit of Holy Church, to take nothing of their tenants but the rent, to put down Cromwell and all heretics, and to prevent all lords and gentlemen from going up to London. If any gentlemen refused to take the oath he was to be put to death and his heir seized and sworn in his stead. This bill was taken by Sir Thomas Wharton on Sunday 21 January^[413].

The fact that this agitation was going on further north was known at Hull, and it was feared that Sir Francis Bigod had fled only to raise Cleveland^[414]. On Saturday 20 January Darcy informed Shrewsbury that the commons of the north were coming forward, and that they entered the houses of Lord Latimer, the Earl of Westmorland, and other gentlemen who had gone up to the King, and made inventories of their goods with the intention of seizing them if their owners did not return at once^[415]. Lord Latimer heard on the same day that the commons of Richmondshire had seized his house at Snape. He was on his way to London, but had been ordered to turn back and wait on Norfolk in York^[416]. The property of the detested Beckwith at Stillingfleet was plundered again on Friday 19 January^[417].

In addition to the disturbances in Richmond and Durham, no one knew what might be happening in Northumberland. When the first news of Bigod’s rising spread to Lincolnshire, it was said that Sir Thomas Percy had seized Scarborough^[418]. The suspicion against him increased when George Lumley came to York on Saturday 20 January, and laid before Sir Oswald Wolsthrope his connection with the rising^[419]. It is true that he was able to state definitely that Sir Thomas Percy had not been at Scarborough, but he represented that the commons of the neighbourhood were so deeply attached to Sir Thomas that he was the “lock, key and ward of this matter.” When examined, Lumley denied that, to his knowledge, Sir Thomas had had any complicity in the rising; he used these words to indicate Sir Thomas’ popularity^[420].

The parson of Leckonfield, Sir Thomas’ chaplain, was at Beverley during Hallam’s attempt. Bigod asked him whether his master was prepared to take part in another insurrection, and he replied that 81Sir Thomas would rise for no man^[421]. As soon as Hallam’s failure was known, the chaplain hurried off to Northumberland with the news^[422]. He travelled so fast that he arrived before Bigod’s own letter to Sir Thomas, which was sent to the dowager countess of Northumberland and forwarded by her with a message that Sir Thomas “should take a substantial way in that matter upon her blessing.” Sir Thomas declared that he understood this to mean that he should have nothing to do with Bigod, and that he was prevented from sending the letter and the messenger who brought it up to the King only by his respect for his mother^[423]. Whatever the countess may really have meant, for her words scarcely seem to bear her son’s interpretation, he was not likely to make any move after he had heard of Hallam’s ill-success, but he was already compromised in more ways than one. On Wednesday 17 January he had proclaimed a county meeting at Morpeth. Sir John Widdrington and Lord Ogle prohibited it. The Percys, contrary to their wont, took this prohibition very well. The coincidence of the proposed meeting with Bigod’s rising is suspicious, but as Sir Thomas acquiesced in its abandonment, it was probably no more than an unfortunate chance. On Monday 22 January the common people swore that they would burn all Tynedale and Reedsdale, but as the reivers were Percy’s friends, this was a movement against, rather than for, him. Lord Ogle succeeded in quieting the people^[424].

The threat of a Northumberland rising was hanging over the heads of the gentlemen at Hull when on Tuesday 23 January they examined Hallam and his accomplices. In consequence of this Aske warned them not to proceed to execution as yet, for fear of provoking the north^[425], and his advice was so far followed that some of the prisoners were sent to York to await Norfolk’s arrival^[426].

The special commissioners who examined them on 23 January were William Rogers the mayor, Sir Ralph Ellerker the younger, Sir John Constable of Holderness, Sir William Constable, Sir Christopher Hillyard, and Richard Smytheley. The chief informer, John Fowbery, was not examined, or at least his evidence has not been preserved. The justices heard Horskey and Langdale, who had turned King’s evidence and had accused the sub-prior and several of 82the canons of Watton^[427]. Hallam was carefully examined on the 24th and 26th, but said nothing to implicate the monks of Watton^[428]; in fact he did not accuse anyone but those who were already prisoners^[429]. On 25 January William Nicholson of Holderness, who had tried to rescue Hallam, Roger Kitchen and John Francis of Beverley were examined. William Crockey the deputy-customer to whom Horskey and Langdale revealed the plot gave his evidence on Friday 26 January. The rest of the prisoners were servants and labourers who were examined on Friday and Saturday^[430].

The case against all these men was perfectly clear. They had risen in open rebellion since the pardon. The extenuating circumstance that the King had deliberately provoked the rising could not be pleaded by them, and the only question was how far the King would be inclined to show mercy. On this point the gentlemen were still in some doubt, and accordingly only Hallam and two others, probably Nicholson and Kitchen, were condemned to death^[431]. The rest were remanded to await the coming of the Duke of Norfolk^[432]. The three were executed before 4 February 1536–7^[433], but probably not until Norfolk had been consulted about their fate.

On the information of Horskey and Langdale three of the canons of Watton were arrested before Tuesday 30 January^[434]. These were Dan Harry Gyll the sub-prior, Thomas Lather the cellarer and granator, and Richard Wilkinson the cellarer of the kitchen. When examined they all three confessed that they had taken part in the election of a new prior, but all declared that it had been done through fear of the commons. They also confessed that it was the general opinion of the monastery that the King could not be Supreme Head of the Church, that they had heard Sir Francis Bigod express doubts as to the validity of the pardon, and that they had sent three men with money to take part in Hallam’s enterprise. The two cellarers professed to have opposed the sending of the men; they said that they were unpopular in the monastery because they were the servants of the prior appointed by Cromwell. Gyll did not attempt to defend himself. The canons were reserved for Norfolk’s judgment^[435].

Another instance of a monastery becoming implicated, justly or unjustly, in the rebellion occurred at this time. Thomas Hungate, 83a servant of Sir Arthur Darcy, informed Sir Oswald Wolsthrope that George Shuttleworth, a servant of Sawley Abbey, had been in Durham when the herald was attacked (on or before 9 January)^[436] and had given out that he was going to Sir Thomas Percy for counsel^[437]. Shuttleworth was arrested about Wednesday 24 January. As suspicion had been so strongly excited against Sir Thomas, this information was naturally believed to be very important. When it became known that Shuttleworth had been in company with William Leache, one of the Lincolnshire refugees, the case against Sir Thomas and the Abbot of Sawley seemed to be almost proved^[438]. Yet when the matter is as far as possible unravelled, with the help of Shuttleworth’s deposition, their guilt still remains dubious.

The Abbot of Sawley’s letter to Aske has already been mentioned. Sir Thomas Percy was regarded as the founder of Sawley, that is, as the representative of William, Lord Percy, who founded and endowed the monastery^[439]. The living founder of a monastery was the person to whom the monks usually appealed in any secular difficulty. After writing to Aske, the Abbot of Sawley decided to apply to his founder also, and wrote a supplication to Sir Thomas Percy^[440]. He took counsel in this matter with no one but three monks of the house, his chaplain Estgate, Bradforde and Parishe.

Estgate took this letter to Sir Stephen Hamerton whom he found hunting at Settle Spring. Estgate offered him for nothing a wood which he had wished to buy from the Abbey two years ago, but Sir Stephen refused such a dangerous gift. The chaplain told him of the letter to Sir Thomas Percy, and repeated the most important part of its contents,—that the commons had restored the monks to their abbey, and that the monks begged for Sir Thomas’ favour. Hamerton said that he did not see what Sir Thomas could do for them “but they might do as they list,” and Estgate left him without any further conversation upon the subject^[441].

When Shuttleworth returned with Robert Aske’s letter, the Abbot straightway despatched him to Sir Thomas Percy with the supplication. At this point a serious difficulty in chronology arises. Shuttleworth said that he set out at once and reached Richmond on Innocents’ Day, 28 December 1536^[442]. Sir Thomas Percy supported this statement by saying that he received the Abbot’s letter a month 84or six weeks before Bigod’s rising^[443]. Against this is to be set the fact that Shuttleworth was accused of having been in Durham on his way to Sir Thomas, on or before 9 January 1536–7^[444], and that he himself said that he had been with Robert Aske at Aughton at a time when Aske must have been in London^[445]. William Maunsell, who took part in arresting Shuttleworth on 24 January, implied that the latter had just returned from his errand^[446]. The only deduction from all this conflicting evidence is that it is impossible to determine exactly when Shuttleworth’s errand was performed; more is known about the way in which he performed it.

The Abbot delivered to him 10s. for his expenses, “a bent royal of gold for a token to Sir Thomas Percy,” and the supplication, the contents of which Shuttleworth did not know. After receiving these articles, Shuttleworth went to Richard Broderton’s inn near the Abbey gates, to have a drink before setting out on his new journey. A friend asked him to come next day to “an ale,” and he was obliged to refuse the invitation because he had an errand to Sir Thomas Percy. Another man heard this, and offered to accompany Shuttleworth, saying that he also had an errand to Sir Thomas. They set out together, and Shuttleworth soon discovered that his companion was William Leache, a Lincolnshire rebel who had been excepted from the King’s pardon.

Leache told Shuttleworth that he had received a letter signed by Lord Darcy, Robert Aske and Sir Thomas Percy summoning Lincolnshire to rise again. He had sent this letter into Lincolnshire with one of his own to the same effect, but before any answer came “they in Yorkshire took another way with them.” The letter had fallen into the King’s hands and consequently Leache had been excluded from the pardon. Now he was going to Sir Thomas Percy to ask for his intercession with the Duke of Norfolk. He showed Shuttleworth one of the letters, but it is not clear whether this was his own letter, or the one alleged to have been signed by Darcy, Aske and Percy^[447]. This letter to Lincolnshire must have been written before the second appointment at Doncaster, when they “took another way,” if it was ever written at all, but the whole story is improbable, for Darcy, Aske and Percy were never together, except for a few days before the first appointment at Doncaster, and Leache had been excepted 85out of the Lincolnshire pardons from the beginning, before the King was even aware that Yorkshire had risen^[448].

Leache and Shuttleworth spent the first night of their journey at Kettlewell, and the next at Ralph Gower’s house in Richmond, where they fell in with a party of five priests and two or three laymen. On hearing that Shuttleworth came from Sawley the laymen said, “Fye on them that dwell nigh about that house, that ever they would suffer the monks to be put out of it. And that was the first house that was put down in this country. But rather than our house of Saint Agatha should go down, we shall all die; and if any insurrection should happen here again, where there was but one in the same before, now there would be three.”

Next night the travellers were in Durham, but Shuttleworth said nothing about their adventures there. On the following day they reached Prudhoe, but Sir Thomas Percy was out hunting, and Shuttleworth did not see him until 9 o’clock on the morning after he arrived. Shuttleworth presented the letter and the token, and Sir Thomas told him he should receive his answer in the afternoon. When Shuttleworth came again, Sir Thomas gave him a verbal message that the Abbot should “make no resistance if any commission came down from the King, but speak fair to such as should come withal, for the Abbot had as many friends as any man, and if any house should stand, his was like to do so.” Sir Thomas also told him to desire Sir Stephen Hamerton’s best counsel for the Abbot and the house, and as a token that the message came from Sir Thomas he was to say “that I [Sir Thomas] spake to him at our last being together that he should be good unto my lady my mother.”^[449]

Leache had not yet accomplished his ambiguous errand. After Shuttleworth left Sir Thomas, Leache had an interview with the latter, but what passed between them Shuttleworth did not know^[450]. The two men went back to Sawley together, but when the Abbot was told who Leache was, he ordered him to “avoid that quarter,” lest he should bring trouble upon the house^[451].

The supplication which aroused so much curiosity in Sir Thomas Percy’s enemies afterwards fell into Norfolk’s hands^[452]. It appears to be a very harmless document. The monks of Sawley begged Sir Thomas to consider their present need, and to let them know his 86pleasure for the succour of their house. They feared their “most sinister back friend Sir Arthur Darcy,” and wished to know whether Sir Thomas would advise them to follow the counsel of the neighbouring commons and remain in their house. Sir Stephen Hamerton and Nicholas Tempest had been true friends, and the monks begged Sir Thomas to give them some reward, as they themselves could requite them only by their prayers. The one passage to which any seditious meaning could be attached ran as follows:—“The whole noise and bruit in these parts is, the captain should have left and discharged himself of the captainship, but also is judged and supposed an order to be taken for religious houses suppressed, the farmers or other to enter and occupy, and the abbot or prior and brethren to have and taken at their delivery their necessaries, and so to be avoided of possession unto the Parliament, whereof not only the place but also the time is as yet not perceived to be; wherefore men’s hearts hath no little suspect, vexation, and great disdain, in doubting the great enormities and danger that may ensue and come to them.”^[453] Even this, which is the most incriminating part of the letter, is too vague to bear any genuinely treasonable interpretation. The unfortunate monks, in fact, only begged to be told what they ought to do, as they were quite ready to submit to any orders which they might receive from a competent authority; but no one was in a position to relieve their perplexity. The Abbot was accused of being the author of the bills which were posted on the church doors in the neighbourhood, but no evidence of this was produced^[454].

The most suspicious circumstance in the communications between Sir Thomas Percy and the Abbot was the presence of William Leache. He was a man of a savage, determined character. On this occasion he made his escape to Scotland, but in 1541 he and another fugitive murdered Somerset Herald near Dunbar, as he was returning from a mission to James V. For this barbarous deed they were both surrendered to the English government and executed^[455]. It can have been with no very peaceful object that such a man appeared at Sawley, visited Sir Thomas Percy, and returned to Sawley again; but the nature of his errand was never discovered.

The gentlemen had accomplished a good deal in the week which followed Bigod’s rising. They had arrested and examined most of his accomplices, they were accumulating evidence against Sir Thomas 87Percy, and George Lumley was a prisoner in York. The only remaining task was the capture of Bigod himself. This did not appear to be a very difficult affair, as everyone had turned against him. The gentlemen were trying to arrest him as a rebel against the King, and the commons were ready to put him to death as a traitor to the commons.

The particulars of Sir Francis’ flight from Beverley on Friday 19 January are not known, but the commons declared that he had deserted them. His only idea was to go home again, and as he neared Settrington he sent forward his horsekeeper Harry Soulay to discover how he would be received. At Yeddingham Bridge Soulay heard the threats of the disappointed rebels, and came back to warn his master to go no further. Bigod took refuge at William Middlewood’s house in Ebberston, and sent Soulay on again, with orders to go right to Settrington for news and to return to Ebberston the same night. Before Soulay’s return Middlewood’s brother-in-law came in and reported some of the angry sayings against Sir Francis which he had heard by the way. Sir Francis was so much alarmed that he set out again and rode all night for his castle at Mulgrave. On the morning of Saturday 20 January he reached Sandsend, a little village on the coast a couple of miles east of Mulgrave. Soulay, on returning to Ebberston to find his master, was seized by the commons and would have been beheaded if he had not been rescued by Sir George Conyers.

The feeling against Sir Francis was so strong that his inveterate enemy Gregory Conyers for the moment took up the popular cause. His one object was to be on the opposite side to Sir Francis, and consequently when the latter changed sides, and again when both sides turned against him, Gregory’s position was a complicated one. On Saturday 20 January he proclaimed to the fishermen all along the coast that Sir Francis Bigod was a traitor to the King and to the commons, and ordered them to keep watch that he did not escape by sea^[456]. This formula linking the King and the commons was the usual one, which occurs in the Lincolnshire oath and elsewhere. It does not imply that Gregory was commissioned to act for the King. William Neville, brother of Lord Latimer, and Serjeant Roger Middlewood went to Mulgrave to seize Bigod’s goods^[457]. Gregory Conyers arrived there shortly afterwards; hearing of the previous seizure, he said to Bigod’s wife, “Madame, and here are twain come 88for the commons,” and seized what remained in the commons’ name, on the grounds that Sir Francis had betrayed them^[458].

While this was going on Bigod was in hiding somewhere near his despoiled castle. On Sunday 21 January Gregory Conyers went to Hinderwell in search of him, warning all the country to give the fugitive no aid, but at this point Gregory seems to have abandoned his alliance with the commons, as he joined the King’s representatives, Neville and Middlewood^[459]. They were so close upon Bigod’s track that they surprised him in his hiding-place, and Gregory seized him by his sleeveless coat, but Bigod slipped off the loose garment and fled into the woods on foot. His assailants had to be satisfied with the capture of his servants and horses^[460]. Dismounted as he was, Bigod eluded pursuit for nearly three weeks^[461].

On Thursday 25 January young Sir Ralph Evers reported to the King the retaking of Scarborough and Bigod’s flight^[462]. He petitioned Cromwell to further his suit for Sir Francis’ lands^[463]. Next day he wrote again enclosing the names of those who had been rulers of the commons in the last insurrection but had served the King well on this occasion. He hoped that the King would acknowledge their services, and particularly praised Sir John Bulmer’s son-in-law Matthew Boynton^[464].

The King must have been pleased to find that his policy had produced such excellent results. The breach between the gentlemen and the commons was now complete. The former had been busy quieting the latter, while Henry felt himself absolved by the rising from any obligation to keep his promises.

On receiving young Sir Ralph Ellerker’s report dated 20 January, the King sent letters to both the writer and his father. He thanked them for their services, sent money and ammunition, and gave permission for 100 horsemen to be retained in Hull, but he was displeased that the prisoners had been admitted to bail. He ordered that they should be re-arrested and tried, and as many as possible executed; for this purpose he sent a commission to the Ellerkers. These letters are undated, but probably reached Hull before 24 January, the day of Hallam’s trial^[465]. John Eland was thanked and rewarded for his service in taking Hallam^[466].

Sir Arthur Darcy wrote to his father from court on 23 January 89that the King had received Lord Darcy’s letters very graciously^[467], and next day Henry wrote himself to Darcy to thank him for his services and to order him to victual Pontefract Castle secretly, so that he and his sons might hold it if the people rose again^[468]. On Thursday 25 January Henry thanked Shrewsbury for his “discreet proceedings” in the “new tragedy moved by that false traitor Bigod.”^[469] The old Earl had written to his master that he was very ill and feared he should “not long be here.”^[470] The King in reply sent him his own physician Dr Butts, and expressed the hope that he would see and thank Shrewsbury in person on “his repair into those parts, which, God willing, shall be shortly.” The King repeated the contents of his letter to Darcy, and declared that so long as Darcy did his duty, he would regard him with as much favour as if the rebellion had never occurred^[471]. Darcy’s pardon was made out on 18 January^[472].

The King wrote to Robert Aske on 24 January thanking him for his letter and goodwill. Henry concluded by saying that he “would be glad to hear of some special deed in answer to our expectations.”^[473] The meaning of this was clear. Aske was already regarded with suspicion in Yorkshire on account of his intercourse with the King. If he took a leading part in the capture and execution of the new rebels, his influence over the commons would be completely destroyed. Then Henry, if he pleased, might safely execute the discredited captain, or extend to him a contemptuous pardon if he seemed likely to become a useful tool. Aske did not take the hint. Throughout the rebellion he had been acting not for himself but for his cause. He was entirely opposed to Bigod’s attempt, because he saw that it was foolish, useless, and dangerous. As he held this opinion he did his best to suppress the movement, but he was full of pity for the unfortunate men who had taken part in it. His voice was always on the side of mercy. He advised that Bigod’s messengers should be released from Hull, that the prisoners should be bailed, and that Hallam’s execution should be delayed in the hope of a pardon. Several of those who had been with Bigod threw themselves upon Aske’s mercy, and he promised to try to procure their pardon^[474].

Perhaps Aske still believed in the King’s humane intentions, but it is scarcely possible that he should have kept this illusion after 90Henry’s letter, particularly in face of the opposite conduct of the other gentlemen. They for the most part realised that they had made their choice between the King and the cause, and that it remained for them to make themselves secure with the King by denouncing others. Beneath the steady stream of gracious messages which still flowed down from the court, there is an eddy in the opposite direction of messages vaguely or definitely hostile to the former leaders of the Pilgrimage, sent up by their former comrades.

Eland and Knolles had taken an active part in the surrender of Hull to the insurgents, but they had now redeemed their characters by capturing Hallam. Sir Ralph Ellerker had been one of the messengers to the King, and Nicholas Rudston had been the chief captain of Holderness, but they were now anxious to retrieve themselves by implicating Sir Robert Constable in the new rising. They discovered a means by which this might be done in the letter which Aske and Constable had written to Rudston before Bigod’s flight from Beverley; it contained the advice that Bigod’s messengers should be released, as they had only done their master’s errand^[475]. The letter was delivered to Rudston on the morning of Friday 19 January, just before the advance on Beverley; after the gentlemen had entered the town Rudston showed the letter to young Sir Ralph Ellerker whom he met on Westwood Green. Rudston read it aloud in the presence of two of Sir Robert’s servants, who perceived that it was considered treasonable^[476].

On Saturday 20 January at Hull Sir Ralph Ellerker caused his chaplain to make a copy of the letter to be sent up to the King, while Rudston went to dine with Sir Robert Constable on Sunday 21 January. Constable’s servants must have warned him that the letter was being used against him, for he asked Rudston to show it to him, and inquired what fault he found with it. Rudston seems to have implied that it was a very faulty performance in every respect, but he said, “The greatest fault that Sir Ralph Ellerker and I do find is against the messengers that ye write for.” Sir Robert unwisely attempted a prevarication, saying that there was no harm in that, for he meant Langdale and Horskey, who went to Hull to buy their Lenten store. Rudston answered that Sir Ralph Ellerker thought that he had meant Bigod’s messengers. Sir Robert retorted with an oath, “And if so, what harm?” and gave back the letter. Later in the day he asked Rudston to show the letter to Dr Waldby. Rudston handed it over, and Sir Robert stood talking about it beside 91the Doctor. Presently he took it out of Waldby’s hands “and conveyed it into his bosom or sleeve.” Rudston saw this, but pretended to notice nothing. Happening to find Waldby by himself, Rudston asked him whom Sir Robert had really meant, and Waldby admitted that the allusion was to Bigod’s messengers. The conclusion is rather humorous:

“Within a while I [Rudston] put my hand into my bosom and said, as if speaking to myself, ‘What have I done with the letter?’ adding, ‘Marry, Mr Constable hath it himself.’ The Doctor said, ‘Even so hath he.’ And forasmuch as I did somewhat mistrust the said Sir Robert, and perceived indeed that he had conveyed the letter, I durst not ask the letter of the said Sir Robert, and specially because I was sure of a copy.”^[477]

Rudston might well be afraid of Sir Robert; it is a matter for wonder that he had sufficient impudence to go and dine at his house, when he was doing his best to ruin him. It was unfortunate for his case that Sir Robert tried to prevaricate about the persons mentioned in his letter, as he was afterwards accused of having asked Rudston to deliver Hallam^[478]. Constable could never have imagined that he could procure Hallam’s release by letter; such an attempt would have been both treasonable and useless, but the ambiguity of his phrase enabled his accusers to read that meaning into the words.

For some reason, both Aske and Constable were firmly convinced that Sir Ralph Ellerker had brought north a letter from the King. Constable asked to be allowed to read it in his letter about the messengers^[479]. On Sunday 21 January Aske, who had returned from Holme to Aughton, wrote to ask Ellerker to send him a copy of the mythical letter from the King. Aske’s request has not been preserved. Sir Ralph Ellerker replied that he had no such letter; his conclusion is curious: “I will be glad to confer with you at Ellerker if you will send me word, for I am not so good a clerk as to read your letter perfectly.”^[480] Aske’s letter was probably the one in which he recommended Ellerker not to execute Hallam while the north was still so much disturbed, and this passage in Ellerker’s reply must be an allusion to the same dangerous subject. Ellerker was collecting evidence against Constable; he may have wished to entrap Aske also, but it is possible to give him the benefit of the doubt. The Ellerkers had an old feud with Sir Robert Constable, which revived as soon as the enforced truce of the 92Pilgrimage ended, but the Ellerkers and the Askes were friends and related by marriage. Young Sir Ralph never produced Aske’s letter as evidence against him, and his comment on the letter which he could not read perfectly may have been meant as a warning that there was something in the letter which ought not to have been written. In response to this invitation Aske set out for Ellerker. On the way he met William Levening and one Fulthorp, who appealed to him to help them, as they had been forced to take part in Bigod’s rising against their will. Levening said that he had already been to Sir Robert Constable and to Lord Darcy, in order to enlist their sympathy. Both he and Fulthorp promised, if Aske would take their names, to be ready to appear before Norfolk whenever he summoned them. Aske undertook to do his best for them, and afterwards requested William Babthorpe to lay their case before the Duke^[481].

The gentlemen who had been loyal throughout the insurrection were now busily accumulating evidence against the late leaders. Sir Henry Saville on 29 January sent to Cromwell a letter from the Vicar of Brayton which showed that the Vicar had acted by Aske’s orders. Sir Henry mentioned a summons which Darcy had sent out to the gentlemen of the Honour of Pontefract, calling them to assemble at Pontefract Castle. Before they came he had surrendered the castle, and on their arrival they all took the Pilgrims’ oath. Sir Henry Saville reported that there had been riots between the servants of the Abbot of Kirkstall and those of Sir Christopher Danby. His advice was that the abbot should be deposed, and he suggested that the real movers in the last insurrection had never appeared, but “had set light persons on to prove the country.”^[482]

The easiest way for anyone to prove his loyalty was by accusing someone else, and Sir George Darcy reported that there were “great exclamations against Aske.” The King’s orders to Darcy to hold Pontefract Castle with his two sons, though put in the form of a compliment, were really a source of strife, for Lord Darcy found it impossible to work with Sir George Darcy, who did his best to obtain evidence against his father. Through Shrewsbury’s mediation, Sir George had a fairly amicable meeting with his father on Friday 26 January^[483], but as soon as the King’s orders concerning Pontefract arrived, about Monday 29 January, trouble followed. On receipt of the King’s letter, Sir George wrote to his father 93to ask him what he meant to do. Darcy replied that he did not wish to make preparations until Sir George came in person to see the letter which he had received, and that as Norfolk was expected on Saturday 3 February, and as the country was quiet, he thought that there would be no harm in waiting until Norfolk arrived before doing anything^[484]. In fact this cunningly framed compliment placed Darcy in such a position that whatever he did could be used as evidence against him. If he set to work energetically to provision Pontefract Castle, he would be accused of preparing for a new insurrection, but when he chose the other course of doing nothing without express orders, he was represented as being slack and reluctant in the King’s service.