Chapter XIX · THE KING’S PEACE (continued 2)
Reading edition
180NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
Note A.
Pacem emit armorum precio
O quam letus dolor in tristi gaudio
Grex respirat pastore mortuo
Plangens plaudit mater in filio
Quia vivit victor sub gladio.
Then follow rubrics with the beginnings of versicles:—
Versus—Justus igitur ...
Collecta—Deus per cujus ...
Capitulum(?)—gloriosus pontifex ...
Note B. It is interesting to observe that Anne Askew, the protestant martyr of 1545, was the daughter of Sir William Askew, one of the commissioners who helped to check the Lincolnshire rebellion. She became the wife of Thomas Kyme of Kelsey, whom she was forced to marry although he was devoted to the old religion[936]. He must have belonged to the same family as Guy Kyme, which would make his relations with his wife still more difficult.
Note C. One of Sir John Bulmer’s papers, seized after his arrest, was a letter from his sister-in-law Anne, the wife of Sir Ralph Bulmer[937]. The writer referred to a message which she had sent to Sir John by his servant Blenkinsop. She mentioned her “brothers” Richard Bowes and Harry Wycliff, but as she was one of the two daughters and co-heirs of Roger Aske of Aske, she had no brothers by blood[938]. Richard Bowes was her brother-in-law, the husband of her sister Elizabeth. Harry Wycliff may have been her step-brother or even her foster-brother. He was accused on 30 March 1537 of inciting the commons to rescue Anthony Peacock, the Richmondshire rebel[939]. The letter from Anne Bulmer is dated Easter day, but without the year. She says that she has received letters from Sir John on Good Friday, and that she and her two “brothers” have arranged that her husband Sir Ralph shall meet Sir John at Northallerton on Easter Tuesday in order to arrange some business over which, apparently, Sir John and Sir Ralph had quarrelled. The nature of the business is not stated.
This may be the treasonable letter that Blenkinsop brought, but it does not bear any outward trace of treason. In fact, if its date was Easter 1537, it is rather evidence for than against Sir John, as it indicates that, so far from plotting a rising, he was busy with private affairs. But the government lawyers were quite unscrupulous in their use of documents, as for instance in the case of the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication. They may have forced a treasonable interpretation upon the innocent letter, or it is possible that the business alluded to may not have been as harmless as it appears. In the absence of a date it is impossible to discover the true importance of the letter. It may have been written at some other Easter years before.
Note D. Froude made up his mind that the Marquis of Exeter must have encouraged the Cornish rising, and in consequence of this preconceived opinion he jumbled together several documents without any regard for their dates. First 181he described the ordering of the banner by the Cornish fishermen, but assigned the intended display of it to the year 1538. In a note he admitted that this date was inconsistent with the fact that “the queen” was to be painted on the banner, as Henry in 1538 was a widower, but Froude explained this by saying that the banner was ordered in the summer of 1537, but the painter delayed his information until 1538; in order to fit in with his theory the insurgents must have ordered their banner a year before they meant to use it.
The passage continues, “At length particular information was given in, which connected itself with the affair at St Keverne. It was stated distinctly that two Cornish gentlemen named Kendall and Quyntrell had for some time past been secretly employed in engaging men who were to be ready to rise at an hour’s warning.” The implication is that the machinations of the two gentlemen were discovered in 1538, in consequence of the exposure of the Cornish plot; yet the evidence quoted in a foot-note sufficiently contradicts this, for it was a report addressed to Cromwell that Kendall and Quyntrell had told many people that “Henry Marquis of Exeter ... would be king, if the King’s Highness proceeded to marry the Lady Anne Boleyn, or else it should cost a thousand men’s lives.” This discrepancy passed unnoticed by Froude[940].
The conspiracy of Kendall and Quyntrell, in fact, took place and was discovered in 1531, when Exeter was banished from court for some time on account of its discovery[941]. It had nothing to do with the present agitation in Cornwall, and there is not the smallest reason to connect the Marquis of Exeter with this later movement.
Note E. This was a favourite proverb of the King’s: “‘Well then,’ quoth the King, ‘Let me alone, and keep this gear secret between yourself and me, and let no man be privy thereof: for if I hear any more of it, then I know by whom it came to knowledge. Three may,’ quoth he, ‘keep counsel, if two be away; and if I thought that my cap knew my counsel I would cast it into the fire and burn it.’”[942]
182