Chapter XVIII · THE DUKE OF NORFOLK’S MISSION (continued 2)

Accordingly on Wednesday 9 May the Duke was at York amidst the fullest assembly of gentlemen that had been seen there for forty years; no one who was still able to sit his horse was missing. Norfolk selected his two juries, one of twenty-one and the other of twenty men. The first was composed chiefly of kinsmen of the Pilgrimage leaders. Sir Christopher Danby, “cousin german removed to the lord Darcy” was the foreman; Sir Edward Gower and Sir Roger Chambley, Constable’s sons-in-law, five more gentlemen related or allied to Darcy, and John Aske, Robert’s brother, were all on the “quest,” and their kinship to the accused was carefully noted by Norfolk himself.

As to the other jury, the foreman was Sir James Strangways, and it included Darcy’s enemy Sir Henry Saville, Thomas Delariver who distinguished himself at Levening’s trial, Nicholas Rudston who had been as deep as any man in the first rising and later turned King’s evidence, and Gregory Conyers, who ran Bigod down. It will be observed that Rudston was one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution in Constable’s case, yet he sat on the grand jury. All the others were men whom Norfolk could trust, though two or three were related to Bigod or the Bulmers^[662].

The position must have been clear to everyone present. If the first jury dared to differ from the second, who were certain to find the prisoners guilty, their decision would be declared a traitorous favouring of their kinsmen and another jury would be called from among the gentlemen whom Norfolk had in readiness. The jurors might compromise themselves, while they could not save their friends. It seems almost incredible that such a thing should have been done in England. It is true that juries were easily bribed or intimidated, and Levening’s case shows how much family politics had to do with a gentleman’s sense of justice, but Wycliff’s case and Sir Thomas More’s charming story of the juror who would not agree with the rest for the sake of good company indicate that men were not devoid of conscience then any more than they are now, and that there was a standard of true justice, however much below it the actual practice might fall. It must have attracted notice that so many kinsmen of the accused were on one jury; but Darcy and Constable between them were related to most of the gentry of the north, and the selection might almost have happened by chance, if Norfolk’s letter did not 137prove that it was purposely done. John Aske’s appointment was a different matter. In the days when even distant relationship was a binding tie, it must have appeared still more monstrous than it does now that one brother should be forced to pass sentence on another. John was probably too weak and too much frightened to protest, but why did Norfolk venture upon such an outrage? He had warned the King against the scandal that would follow any public punishment of the jury which had acquitted Levening. Yet little more than a month later he did not hesitate to commit this far greater abuse of power. It is hard for us to-day to imagine an adequate motive for such an action. No doubt Norfolk wished to be able to say “The prisoners must have been guilty: their own friends convicted them”; and he seems to have been moved partly by vanity, wishing to show the King and Cromwell that he could do anything with the northern gentlemen. He boasted that if he had known them before as he did now Levening would not still be alive^[663].

The juries were sworn, the Duke addressed them, and they retired separately. Shortly they returned and found the indictments “billa vera.” The fate of the Pilgrims was soon decided, for if the chance of acquittal by their own friends was small, with a London jury it would be smaller still.

The business of the court was not yet done. After the indictments of the Pilgrims the case was taken of two Carthusian monks who denied the King’s supremacy. These were John Rochester and James Whalworth of the London Charterhouse, who had been sent to the Charterhouse at Hull. Rochester had written to Norfolk in March, offering to explain before the Duke and his council how much the King was deceived by those who persuaded him to assume the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England; he begged Norfolk to help him to the King’s presence, for he would rather die than hide the truth^[664]. Norfolk forwarded the letter to Cromwell, remarking rather peevishly that the monk should never have been sent north, as he had always expressed his opinions openly, and that he certainly ought to be “justified” in the south^[665]. Norfolk, however, was obliged to see to both of them himself. They might have recanted at their trial, but they both stood firm. “Two more wilful religious men in manner unlearned I think never suffered,” wrote Norfolk. They were condemned to be executed on Friday 11 May^[666].

138The indictments were despatched to London, where they were received in plenty of time for the trials, which began on Tuesday 15 May 1537.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XVIII

Note A. Staveley’s dates are entirely incomprehensible. We have done our best to construct a reasonable chronology from the facts.

Note B. It is not clear from the accounts whether Sir Christopher Dacre came up and attacked the commons in the rear, or whether he was already in the town. Wilfred Holme says that five hundred horse “came forth” from the city; as he does not give the names of the leaders, he may have been thinking of Thomas Clifford’s troop, which certainly came out of the castle. On the whole it seems most probable that Dacre was not in Carlisle but came upon the rebels while riding to the relief of the town.

Note C. The problem of the fate of Holm Cultram Abbey is rather curious. Abbot Carter had undoubtedly taken part in the second insurrection. Yet he was never attainted, for on the attainder of an abbot the King seized the abbey, as in the cases of Whalley and Barlings, but Holm Cultram was surrendered by the Abbot and monks on 6 March 1537–8^[667]. The Abbot who conducted this surrender was Gawen Borrodale, a monk of the house who had been accused of poisoning a former abbot, Abbot Ireby^[668]. Borrodale had been appointed before 23 January 1537–8^[669]. It is possible that Abbot Carter escaped attainder by a natural death. Gasquet suggests this, but confuses Carter with his predecessor, Ireby^[670].

Note D. The third of Aske’s papers is entered separately in the Letters and Papers, but it was obviously written before his imprisonment, and should probably be placed with the other two.

Note E. On 13 May 1537 the King desired the Duke of Norfolk to go in person to suppress the Priory of Bridlington and the Abbey of Jervaux^[671], as the Duke had offered to perform the work, if it was the King’s pleasure, in a letter of 10 May:—“I think I should be at the suppressing because the neighbouring country is populous and the houses greatly beloved by the people, and also well stored with cattle and other things that will not come all to light so well if I be absent.” He suggested that he should take with him Mr Magnus, Sir George Lawson, Leonard Beckwith, Blytheman and his own two servants Uvedale and Rous, to survey the lands. He remarked frankly, “these men look for none of the farms, and therefore will see to your profit.”

Jervaux was “well covered with lead,” and as to Bridlington, Norfolk went into raptures over the roofs there. “It has a barn all covered with lead, the 139largest, widest, and deepest roofed that ever I saw.” Altogether there must be at least three or four thousand pounds’ worth of lead, and that so near the sea that it could be easily taken away^[672]. Norfolk was at Bridlington from 16 to 18 May. Inventories were made of all the goods and the best part were sent to Sheriffhutton. The priory church of Bridlington was also the parish church for 1500 “houseling people” [communicants]; Norfolk suggested that part of the land might be granted to the parishioners, to keep up the church and the shrine of St John, and to repair the harbour, which was a dangerous place^[673].

Even in the matter of the monasteries, Norfolk was not entirely trusted. Cromwell wrote that commissioners would be sent down from court to survey the lands, estimate the value of the lead, and so forth. If £20 would repair the haven, it might be done. The King did not intend to make grants of the land till Michaelmas, when he would put in substantial men to comfort the tenants and stay the country. As to the shrine, it was to be taken down, in order that the people might not be seduced into offering money there; all the jewels and plate were to be sent direct to London, except such as Norfolk chose to buy. The cattle and corn might be sold at once^[674]. These orders were executed before 5 June, when Tristram Teshe carried to London the tenths and two chests full of the gold and jewels taken from the Bridlington shrine. Among them were three “wrought tablets” of which Norfolk wrote to the King “if I durst ... be a thief I would have stolen them to have sent them to the Queen’s Grace, but now your Highness having them may give them unto her without offence.” There was also “a proper thing of radix Jesse to be set upon an altar.” There remained the silver plate; Norfolk said contemptuously that it was very old and had better be broken up^[675], and no doubt it was destroyed according to his advice. The church itself is said to have been demolished^[676].

Jervaux was disposed of in as short a time; the monks had been dispossessed by Norfolk before 31 May, and Sir George Lawson, Robert Bowes, Blytheman and others were left in charge. The abbey church was covered with lead, half of which belonged to the parishioners. Norfolk made a choice selection from the spoils, including a ring, a silver cross and censers. Beckwith, who carried letters to London, was charged to give the King “this stone called the best stone.” “Item, after this manner all men will be desirous to see dissolution.”^[677] It is a matter for conjecture whether the defrauded parishioners were so well satisfied, or whether they received their own part of the lead and preferred that to their parish church. Sir Arthur Darcy, in a letter to Cromwell of 8 June, commended Jervaux as “one of the fairest churches I have seen, fair meadows and the river running by it and a great demesne.” He thought that Jervaux would be a better place for the King’s stud of mares than Thornbury^[678]. If this arrangement would have saved the abbey it is a pity it was not carried out.

When Richard Pollard surveyed Bridlington in June, it is satisfactory to learn that he found most of the movables had been stolen by the poor folk of the neighbourhood^[679].

140Note F. It has been suggested to us that if we are neither satisfied with the jury of enemies nor with the jury of friends, it is because whatever the government did is wrong in our eyes. The third possibility, a jury of indifferent men, does not seem to have occurred to our critic. Norfolk had all the gentlemen of the north to choose from; and if it be urged that indifferent men would be difficult to find at such a time of political excitement, still he could easily have avoided the Pilgrims’ near relatives, and enemies who had actually given evidence against them on the charge that was being tried. (For Rudston’s evidence against Constable see L. and P. XII (1), 1130; for Saville’s evidence against Darcy see L. and P. XII (1), 1087 (p. 497).) It is true that to appoint an indifferent jury is a counsel of perfection which in similar circumstances would very likely not be followed in our own age. If Norfolk had merely named two juries of loyalists, we should not have called it justice, but it would have been so natural and indeed inevitable as to merit no special comment. It appears to us that Norfolk’s actual proceedings, as set forth in his own letters, were very far from natural, and were deliberately calculated to give the greatest possible pain both to the accused and to those jurors who were forced either to condemn their relatives or to show “their cankered hearts” to a jealous government. And we believe that “outrage” would not be considered too strong a word for his conduct by most honest men either in that age or our own.

141