Chapter XX · THE END OF THE PILGRIMAGE

It is not likely that any tidings of the new attempts at insurrection reached the prisoners in the Tower. They were cut off from the world and forgotten; the conspirators who still maintained their cause did not even plan a rescue.

The champions of the old faith lay at the mercy of the reformers, but even this was not perhaps the most deadly feature of the prisoners’ position. Their plight was rendered still worse by the fact that they were the upholders of the common law, but they had fallen into the hands of the civilians. There was a new influence at work in the law courts, inimical to the ancient free customs of England:—

“In 1535, the year in which More was done to death, the Year Books come to an end: in other words, the great stream of law reports that has been flowing for near two centuries and a half, ever since the days of Edward I, becomes discontinuous and then runs dry. The exact significance of this ominous event has never yet been duly explored, but ominous it surely is. Some words that once fell from Edmund Burke occur to us: ‘To put an end to reports is to put an end to the law of England.’”^[943]

One sign of this new influence was very significant, namely, the interrogation of the prisoner before trial. This practice, which was closely connected with the use of torture, was contrary to the usages of English common law, but it was so freely employed in Henry VIII’s reign that “in criminal causes that were of any political importance an examination by two or three doctors of the civil law threatened to become a normal part of our procedure.”^[944] Every one of the prisoners after the Pilgrimage of Grace was repeatedly interrogated and their answers were used as the chief evidence against themselves and each other.

Norfolk expected the last batch of prisoners from the north to arrive in London on 21 April 1537. Sir John Bulmer and Margaret 183were reunited in the Tower, never to be “departed” again, except for a few hours^[945].

The King was not satisfied with such a small number of prospective executions, and several of the gentlemen had narrow escapes. It was characteristic of the royal gratitude that two of the three noblemen who had served him most faithfully in the north were among those in danger. The Earl of Cumberland paid no penalty for his loyalty, but the Earl of Northumberland, who had refused the rebels’ oath at the risk of his life, was threatened with a prosecution for treason. He had made the King his heir, but he was “an unconscionable time a-dying.” Henry wanted to settle the north, and entertained the idea of sweeping away all the three Percy brothers at once. The Earl was charged with the surrender of Wressell Castle to Aske, although this event was undoubtedly covered by the pardon^[946]. The accusation was made about the end of April, and on 29 April the unfortunate man wrote to declare his unswerving loyalty^[947]. It was probably not so much his innocence as the state of his health which saved him from a traitor’s death. On 3 June he sent word that although he had made the King his heir on condition that certain articles of his devising were performed, he now withdrew all conditions and submitted everything wholly to the King^[948]. Perhaps the threat of a prosecution had been made in order to secure this submission. On 29 June 1537 the Earl died and the King at last entered upon the inheritance that he had coveted so long^[949].

Young Sir Ralph Evers, who had defended Scarborough Castle against the rebels, must have appeared to be perfectly secure of the King’s favour, yet he also fell under suspicion. He had been ordered to seize the goods of the quondam prior of Guisborough and of Dr John Pickering, and he was charged with embezzling some of the money^[950]. The charge was very likely true, but his gains cannot have been great, and at a time when pickings were so plentiful his conduct was hardly worthy of remark.

A more serious matter against him was his alleged letter to Sir John Bulmer, which contained disrespectful comments on Norfolk and Cromwell^[951]. Norfolk examined him about it on 11 July and was 184favourably impressed by his answers. The Duke advised that Evers should be summoned to London, although he was in very bad health, suffering apparently from a serious abscess in his ear. Norfolk did not think he could live long, and suggested that the letter had been forged against him by his enemy Sir Roger Cholmeley^[952]. Evers insisted that he had not written the treasonable passages, on the very good grounds that he could neither read nor write more than his own name^[953]. Sir Ralph was at Windsor in July^[954], but returned safely to the north in August^[955]. His summons to London at such a time naturally caused his family the greatest anxiety. His wife was reported to have said, “There is twenty of the best in Yorkshire hath sent me word that if my husband were in any danger, that they would rise and fetch him out or else die therefore,” and also that if her husband were in any danger above, it would turn to a worse business than the death of any man that died in Yorkshire. Two servants who tried to lay information against her were imprisoned by John Evers, Sir Ralph’s brother, in the parsonage of Lythe, near Whitby. They contrived to escape to Sir Ralph’s enemy Sir Roger Cholmeley, and laid their accusations against Lady Evers^[956] and her brother-in-law, but Norfolk treated the matter lightly, perhaps because her words were true and he dared not meddle with her^[957]. Norfolk came to the conclusion that the incriminating letter had been written by one of Evers’ servants, but he was satisfied with the punishment of the servant, and overlooked the offence of the master^[958].

The King’s auditors on 28 December 1536 accused Lord Conyers of hindering them in their collection of the royal rents, “for some said if he commanded [the tenants] they would pay, insomuch that Mr Fulthorpe, constable of the Castle [of Middleham] urged him to further the audit.”^[959] This was duly noted, and as soon as the King could act with safety Lord Conyers was sent for and put in ward. By Norfolk’s advice, however, he was released instead of being brought to trial. Lord Conyers returned home and incurred the King’s further displeasure by breaking “his promise at his departure from Windsor,” whatever that may have been^[960]. Nevertheless he escaped further trouble.

Lord Latimer’s danger was even greater. He was vaguely implicated in the Bulmer conspiracy, and it was known that he had 185suggested at Pontefract that the clergy should be asked whether it was ever lawful for subjects to rebel. He was also connected with Sir Francis Bigod, whose baby son Ralph was pledged to Lord Latimer’s daughter Margaret^[961]. Latimer was summoned to London at the same time as Sir John Bulmer, but he never obeyed the summons^[962]. At length, about the middle of June, Norfolk induced him to go up to London as a suitor on his own affairs; the Duke was not scrupulous in such matters, but perhaps it was as a salve to his conscience that he wrote to Cromwell that he could find no evidence against Latimer^[963].

Lord Latimer had been proposed as a member of the Council of the North, but his name was struck off the list^[964]. He arrived in London about 29 June^[965], and his friends gave him up for lost. His brother Thomas Nevill, hearing of his journey, exclaimed to his wife, “Alas, Mary, my brother is cast away. By God’s Blood, if I had the King here I would make him that he should never take man into the Tower.” Hearing a poor woman lamenting that the parson of Aldham, Essex, who had been arrested for treason, “should be put to death upon a false wretch’s saying,” Nevill replied, “No, Margaret, he shall not be put to death, for he hath no lands nor goods to lose; but if he were either a knight or a lord that had lands or goods to lose, then he should lose his life.”^[966] Yet lands and goods might save a life as well as destroy it. Lord Latimer escaped for the time by means of a bribe to Cromwell in the form of his house within the Charterhouse churchyard, the lease of which had cost Latimer 100 marks, besides his expenses on many improvements^[967].

Lord Lumley came up to London with Lord Latimer, and saved himself in the same way. The evidence which connected him with the Bulmer conspiracy was fairly clear, but he sent a substantial bribe to Cromwell, with the hint that, in consequence of his son’s attainder, he could make whomsoever he pleased his heir^[968]. By these means he was enabled to die in his bed.

It is not likely that Latimer and Lumley would have been able to buy themselves off if the King had really determined upon their death, but in the case of Lumley the royal vengeance was satisfied by the execution of his son George Lumley, and after the trials of Darcy and Hussey Henry must have realised that it would not be easy to secure a conviction on the very slender evidence which was all that 186could be produced against Latimer. Barons and lesser nobles were the only men whose trials gave Henry any difficulty. The great nobles, Buckingham, Exeter, Norfolk, made so many enemies, that it was easy to accomplish their fall. Knights, country gentlemen, and common people were at the King’s mercy. But barons must be tried by their peers, who were collectively too powerful to be intimidated; and these judges were led by a strong class spirit to sympathise with their unfortunate fellow-peer who stood before them. Before this Lord Dacre had been acquitted^[969]; later the King found it impossible to bring Lord Delaware to trial^[970], and even at the present crisis the peers made an effort to save Lord Darcy. Lord Hussey excited less sympathy, being comparatively an upstart.

Darcy was committed to the Tower on 7 April 1537^[971], and on the 8th the King sent orders to Norfolk to seize his lands, papers, etc.^[972] There was some apprehension at court that his arrest might provoke a fresh rising, but Norfolk had taken his precautions, and assured Cromwell that there was no danger^[973], while he seized the goods in accordance with his orders^[974].

Darcy was examined at the Lord Chancellor’s house about 16 April^[975]. He did not make a patient subject for cross-examination; he knew that his doom was fixed and, like Macbeth, he turned upon his enemies:

“They have tied me to a stake; I cannot fly,

But bear-like I must fight the course——.”

He greeted his examiners with the words: “I am here now at your pleasure; ye may do your pleasure with me. I have read that men that have been in cases like with their prince as ye be now have come at the last to the same end that ye would now bring me unto. And so may ye come to the same.”^[976] He accused Surrey; he most probably accused Norfolk^[977]; he defied Cromwell with the famous challenge: “Cromwell, it is thou that art the very original and chief causer of all this rebellion and mischief, and art likewise causer of the apprehension of us that be noble men and dost daily earnestly travail to bring us to our end and to strike off our heads, and I trust that or thou die, though thou wouldst procure all the noblemen’s heads within 187the realm to be stricken off, yet shall there one head remain that shall strike off thy head.”^[978]

Darcy was examined again in the Tower before his trial^[979], but the fragments of his answers on the first occasion show plainly the reason why the full record of them has not been preserved. It must have been a very spirited document, but too many people were interested in its destruction for it to survive, while there was no motive for keeping it, as it incriminated none of the other Pilgrims. This is proved by the summaries of the evidence against the different prisoners, and the memoranda for the prosecution. In these the names of the witnesses against each prisoner are given, with references to the examinations and depositions containing the evidence. Not a single person was accused by Darcy; not a single charge was strengthened by his evidence. He made good his vaunt that “Old Tom has not one traitor’s tooth in his head.”

All Darcy’s papers were seized and sent to London; they were very numerous, for he kept copies of almost every letter that he ever received or wrote^[980]. His method of writing was to make a rough copy of the letter himself in his large, bold, uncouth handwriting with individualistic spelling; this was given to one of his secretaries who made one fair copy, or perhaps several if the matter was important. Out of this correspondence the Crown lawyers proceeded to pick treason, and their notes show the kind of evidence which must have been given at the trial as proof of the charges in the indictment^[981].

This evidence falls into three classes, (1) the treasonable acts which he was accused of committing since the King’s pardon; (2) those which he committed during the rebellion; (3) those which he had committed before the period covered by the pardon which extended from 10 October to 10 December 1536^[982].

(1) The principal evidence in the first category was that Darcy in his letters about Bigod’s rising had repeatedly stated that Norfolk was coming down to confirm the general pardon and to appoint the time for the new parliament and convocation, that he came with but a small company, and that the commons must remain quiet until he arrived^[983]. This was twisted into treason on the grounds that it implied, if the terms were not confirmed, according to the rebels’ unreasonable requests, “they will revive their traitors’ hearts; meanwhile they are 188to stay but upon the Duke’s coming.” This charge is obviously nonsense. Darcy believed the King’s solemn and repeated assurances that he pardoned everybody, and that he would hold a free parliament. Now that the King did not mean to keep his promises, it was suggested that Darcy’s faith in the royal word was treason. Darcy believed that Norfolk brought from the King conciliatory messages which would satisfy the commons, and take away their wish to rebel again. In this mistaken belief he pacified the country, and this was also considered a proof of treason.

Another piece of evidence on which stress was laid was that Levening, “one of the principal traitors with Bigod,” had asked Darcy to speak to Norfolk on his behalf, and that Darcy had never reported his application^[984]. This shows the King’s superb command over circumstances. Levening was not a traitor. He had been tried and acquitted; legally he was an innocent man, and it could not possibly be treason to help him to clear his character. But in spite of the verdict of the jury the King had made up his mind that Levening was a traitor, and as a traitor he was to appear in all other trials.

More evidence against Darcy was gleaned from Parker’s letter which described the state of Lancashire at Christmas time^[985]. It was a report of muttered discontent and threatening preparations. Cromwell commented on it that Parker would not have written this if it had not been Lord Darcy’s pleasure^[986], which shows the kind of report that he expected from his own spies; but it appears from the letter itself that Parker was far from sure that Darcy would be pleased, for he said, “My lord, I beseech your lord[ship] be not miscontent with me if [I show your] lordship what their communing is in all this country.” Cromwell’s other objection, that Darcy never reported Parker’s warning to the royal lieutenants, was absolutely false. Darcy wrote to Shrewsbury about it on 7 January^[987].

Further evidence related to Darcy’s alleged message to Aske before the latter went up to London at Christmas. This has already been discussed and disproved^[988].

Sir John Bulmer’s statement that he sent Darcy warning not to go to London was mentioned, but this point was not dwelt upon, as even Cromwell must have realised that there was no proof that 189Darcy had received the message, and he certainly had not acted upon it^[989].

Darcy’s recent stewardship of Pontefract Castle was called in question, and it was considered equally treasonable that he had suggested the delay of its re-equipment for a few days^[990], and that, when Sir George Darcy insisted on speed, he had applied to Aske for the weapons which had been carried off by the rebels^[991].

One of the notes deals with an interesting point in the second negotiations at Doncaster. It was alleged that Darcy wrote to Suffolk and Shrewsbury to require that the appointment should be observed in Lincolnshire, and that no prisoners should be executed. As none is known to have been put to death until March this probably was in fact part of the appointment^[992].

The last accusation of this class was that Darcy, in a letter which has not been preserved, invited Aske to meet Chaloner, Grice and Sir Robert Constable at Templehurst, ending “I trust in our being together shall stay many things, and all good men I find well-minded thereunto, your faithful, Thomas Darcy.” Against this it was objected that the meeting was suspicious, and that “by the words ‘your faithful’ it appears there is great fidelity betwixt the Lord Darcy and Robert Aske, being but a mean person.”^[993]

A puzzling note in the evidence states that Darcy, in Lent, sent a copy of one of Norfolk’s letters to “the prior of Whalley now attainted”; this showed that he favoured a traitor^[994]. There is some mistake here, for the prior of Whalley was not a traitor; it was the abbot who was condemned for treason^[995]. Talbot deposed that one of Aske’s servants gave him a copy of a letter from Norfolk to Darcy, which he delivered to the abbot of Whalley, but the witness did not state when this happened^[996]. It is by no means improbable that Cromwell simply invented the date, “in Lent,” and that the letter referred to was really the one found in the vicar of Blackburn’s house, which had been sent out in November with the summons to the council at Pontefract^[997]. Aske’s letter about the same council is also mis-endorsed “since the appointment.”^[998]

190(2) The second class of evidence against Darcy ought not to have been brought into the case, as the events were covered by his pardon. It was no longer a matter of importance whether the surrender of Pontefract Castle was collusive^[999], whether Darcy took the rebels’ oath^[1000], what he said to Somerset Herald^[1001], or whether he proposed to send a message to Flanders^[1002]. All this should have been obliterated by his pardon of 18 January 1536–7^[1003]. Nevertheless minute inquiries were made on all these points in order to blacken the case against him.

Owing to his high office and influential position there were naturally a great many papers relating to different periods of the rising in Darcy’s possession. Some had been sent to him before the siege of Pontefract by the King’s lieutenants, while he was still acting for the King^[1004]; others had been intercepted during the rebellion or had been sent to him by the rebels^[1005]; while others again were later than the pardon, when he was once more acting for the King^[1006]. The possession of these letters was the necessary consequence of the position which Darcy had filled for many years, yet it was considered highly suspicious, and was magnified into treason.

Other accusations which fall under this head had more point. By investigating the problem of the Pilgrims’ badges it might have been possible to prove that Darcy had foreknowledge of the insurrection, although as a matter of fact nothing incriminating was discovered^[1007]. The government was naturally anxious to learn who were the Pilgrims’ southern friends, as although Darcy’s share of the correspondence was covered by the pardon, the other parties’ share was not; but Darcy accused no one^[1008]. On this subject a story was sent to Cromwell that a certain beggar “said he had a letter from Lord Darcy to my lord of Exeter in his cape.” The cape was cut to pieces, and the remains of a letter, also cut up, were discovered. The finder, Sir Walter Stonor, sent the fragments to Cromwell, but he did not put much faith in the tale, as both the beggar and his accuser were “very simple men.”^[1009] In an age of such universal suspicion there was an immense temptation to half-witted people to acquire 191a dangerous importance by making accusations and professing to know secrets. Instances of this tendency have been given already, and this must have been another case, for although Cromwell was eager to implicate southern noblemen in the rebellion, nothing more is heard of the story.

(3) Finally comes evidence that Darcy had committed treason before the beginning of the insurrection. Here the prosecution was really on firmer ground. They suspected as much, but they had even less real proof than in other parts of the case. At this point a curious problem arises. There was no substantial evidence that Darcy had committed treason since the pardon; but from Chapuys’ correspondence we know now that he had been guilty of treason two years before. The government suspected the earlier plot, but had never been able to prove it. Can it be said that justice was done when Darcy was executed?

So many innocent persons were put to death in Henry’s reign that historians are apt to dwell with relief on any defects in the character of the condemned, no matter how irrelevant they may be to the charge on which he suffered. Darcy was tried and executed for a crime which he had not committed, but he had committed a crime for which, if his guilt could have been proved, he would have been executed. Unless the principle is adopted that the wickedness of some people is such that it is right to shoot them at sight, this is not a satisfactory way of administering justice. Even a criminal is entitled to a fair trial, and to acquittal when he is not guilty of the particular crime with which he is charged.

To return to the evidence against Darcy,—nothing could be proved, but a few rash speeches were brought up against him, which did not amount to treason. He had said that he would be no heretic^[1010], and that it was better to rule than to be ruled, but the utmost severity was needed to construe this into a plot against the King’s title or life^[1011]. A witness was found in the person of a chantry priest, who deposed that he had been told that Darcy said, on hearing of the rebellion in Lincolnshire, “Ah, are they up in Lincolnshire? If they had done this three years ago it had been a much better world than it is now.” The same deponent had also been told of another speech of Darcy’s, apparently after the pardon, “By God’s blessed mother, if the commons should happen to rise again, where there were then two shaven crowns that did take their parts, there will 192now be four.”^[1012] These speeches are reported on no authority but that of hearsay, and were repeated eight and four months after they were alleged to have been uttered. They would not be admitted as evidence in any law-court now, but no such nice scruples were entertained in Henry VIII’s reign.

There may have been an attempt to accuse Darcy of plotting to murder Wolsey. The following notes are in the “articles against Lord Darcy”:—“First, the destruction of the Cardinal in the Chancery”; “For the gunpowder to burn my Lord Cardinal.”^[1013] Apparently the charge broke down. Norfolk tried to support it by sending Darcy’s “book” against Wolsey. Darcy had taken the chief part in the Cardinal’s prosecution and this “book” probably contained the charges brought against the latter with the consent of the King. Norfolk, however, said it showed that “the said lord has been long dissatisfied with the King’s affairs, and the King may by his great wisdom pick out some matters long since imagined.”^[1014] “The book that the Lord Darcy made against the Cardinal” was entered among the evidence against Darcy^[1015].

Other pieces of evidence were picked out of Darcy’s old papers,—an indenture with a servant of quite an ordinary type^[1016], an order dated June 1536 for a statute book, which Cromwell thought “might be conspiracy before the insurrection.”^[1017] But these points, and perhaps some of the others, must probably have appeared even to the King’s lawyers too slight to be brought up at the trial.

It is difficult to know what to say about such pieces of evidence as these, so trivial, so disingenuous, and yet treated as of sufficient weight to cost a man his life. When the morality of another age is strikingly unlike our own, we are apt to excuse it on the grounds that it was the custom of the time, and that people knew no better. But this will not serve to excuse the treason trials of Henry VIII. People did know better. All intelligent and honourable men knew that the King was not doing justice. There is abundant proof in the preceding pages of this book that no class of society believed it to be just or right or necessary for the common safety to put men to death “for a word speaking,” particularly when the evidence that the word had been spoken was only hearsay or was supplied by those who had an interest in the death of the accused. The treason laws, and trials such as those of More, Fisher and the 193Carthusian monks, in the previous year, excited so much horror as to provoke the rebellion. The rising was at first successful; it was overcome not by force, nor by the rally of any considerable party round the throne, but by treachery. The King in the moment of victory was able to do as he pleased, for the defeated opposition was bewildered, terrified and helpless. But laws and legal proceedings of the kind which in part caused the revolt cannot reasonably be called a bulwark of national safety, nor is it altogether just to say that they were willingly accepted and supported by the nation.

On 15 May 1537 Lord Darcy was brought to trial in Westminster Hall on the indictment which had been found at York. The Marquis of Exeter was appointed Lord High Steward for the trial, and the panel of peers was composed of the Marquis of Dorset, the Earls of Oxford, Shrewsbury, Essex, Cumberland, Wiltshire and Sussex, Viscount Beauchamp, and Lords Delaware, Cobham, Maltravers, Powes, Morley, Clinton, Dacre of the South, Mountjoy, Windsor, Bray, Mordaunt, Borough and Cromwell^[1018]. It will be observed that Cromwell, who took the chief part in drawing up the indictment, was also one of the judges.

Darcy pleaded not guilty, and his peers were by no means willing to convict him according to a friend of Delaware, who said that Delaware, on coming from the trial, had told him he trusted Darcy would lose neither life nor goods, as Cromwell had promised to do his best for him^[1019]. Darcy could have told them the folly of listening to such a promise,—“he that will lay his head on the block may have it soon stricken off,”^[1020] but the tale served its purpose. The lords found him guilty, and if Cromwell intervened his petition was useless. The trial was on Tuesday, and it was at first intended that the execution should take place on Saturday. Darcy faced the prospect with great firmness; “Lord Darcy is a very bold man,” wrote Husee^[1021]. On Friday Darcy sent for his confessor to be with him early next morning; he asked for either Doctor Aglabe of the Black Friars nigh Ludgate, or “the Doctor of Our Lady Friars in Fleet Street, a big, gross, old man.”^[1022] His death, however, was postponed. The King could not make up his mind whether it would have a better effect to execute Darcy in London or in his own country, and until this point was settled he remained in the Tower.

On 3 June Norfolk sent up to London Thomas Strangways, Darcy’s 194steward, who had just been arrested at Beverley^[1023]. He had in his possession letters to Darcy from Norfolk, Bowes and Ellerker, and the King’s letter to Bowes and Ellerker^[1024]. Norfolk said that the discovery of these letters showed that the Pilgrims had had spies in the royal camp, but it is not clear why he thought this, for all these were public documents which would naturally be circulated in the north. Strangways was “sore crazed” and could travel only very slowly^[1025]. When he reached London it was supposed that he would “open many matters,”^[1026] but “like master, like man.” Strangways showed all Darcy’s resolution, and made the King very angry by “labouring to excuse wholly Lord Darcy and Constable and that with such advancement of the fame of the country towards them as though our subjects there do much repine at their punishments, saying also plainly that they be more meet to rule there than you [Norfolk] be and much better beloved than you be, amongst the people of those parties.” These words give an impressive picture of the faithful old servant, sick and helpless, yet daring to speak out before the terrible King.

The effect of Strangways’ words was to make Henry almost determined to send down all the prisoners for execution in the north. He wrote to Norfolk:

“Considering that this matter of the insurrection hath been attempted there, and thinking that as well for the example as to see who would groan at their execution, it should be meet to have them executed at Doncaster and thereabouts; minding, upon their sufferance, to knit up this tragedy, we think it should not be amiss that we should send the said Darcy, Constable and Aske down for that purpose; requiring you, with diligence, to advertise us of your opinion in that behalf.”^[1027]

Norfolk’s reply has not been preserved, but he dared not risk the effect of Darcy’s execution in the north; the idea was given up, and the old lord’s life was prolonged again.

Darcy never entertained any hope of mercy. In June he sent a petition to the King, asking, not for pardon, but “that the straitness of the judgment may be mitigated at the King’s pleasure.” He had been condemned to the usual death for treason, but he was allowed the privilege of his rank and was beheaded. He also requested “to have confession and, at mass, to receive my Maker”; and begged that his whole body might be buried by that of his second wife Lady Nevill in the Friary at Greenwich. He sent in 195a list of his debts, which were small, begging that they might be paid; “the premises served is great merit in, and to me a singular comfort, and to his Grace a small matter.” He added that he forgave the King a debt of £4400 which the Treasury owed him, and therefore trusted that his Grace “will the rather command the within-written debts to be paid.”^[1028] On June 30 1537 Lord Darcy was beheaded on Tower Hill^[1029]. His last wishes were not observed, for his head was exposed on London Bridge, and his body was buried “at the Crossed Friars beside the Tower of London.”^[1030] On 22 July Darcy was posthumously degraded from his rank as Knight of the Garter, and his vacant stall was bestowed upon Cromwell^[1031]. The overthrow of the old by the new could not be more emphatically marked.

During Darcy’s imprisonment his sons were in the north, scrambling for a share in the monastic lands. But there is perhaps a touch of natural feeling in a letter dated 3 May to the King from Sir Arthur, Darcy’s younger and favourite son, in which he requested that if his father was condemned, he might be allowed to change his lands for others in the south, because he would never again “rejoice to abide here.”^[1032]

Lord Hussey’s wavering fortunes since the insurrection have already been traced. He had been accused, but never brought to trial; the accusation had been allowed to fall into abeyance, but he had never been pardoned. His trial was in one sense fairer than Darcy’s, but in another even less fair. Darcy had openly committed treason, and borne arms against the King, but he had been pardoned. Hussey had never received a pardon, and consequently he was liable at any time to be brought to judgment for his behaviour during the rising in Lincolnshire, but on the other hand he had never committed any definitely treasonable act.

Hussey was arrested at about the same time as Darcy, and was imprisoned in the Tower^[1033]. He was present at Darcy’s first examination^[1034]. His wife, who was living at Limehouse, was allowed to visit him, and he repeated to her such of Darcy’s answers as are given above. All her misfortunes had not taught Lady Hussey discretion. She repeated the words to her servant Katharine Cresswell, the wife of Percival Cresswell, and the story soon spread abroad^[1035].

196The evidence against Hussey was much less bulky than that against Darcy, and it falls into two classes. The first was that relating to his conduct during the Lincolnshire insurrection. This has been fully discussed above^[1036]. His acts all showed him to be loyal; he sent out warnings, he tried to raise men, he kept his district quiet, and when resistance was hopeless he fled to the royal camp. Against the evidence of such conduct there was nothing to oppose but spiteful gossip, conjectures and perversions of evidence. It was said that though he received warning of the revolt on Monday, he did nothing until Wednesday^[1037], a statement which was contradicted by the Mayor of Lincoln’s evidence that Hussey ordered him to prepare to resist the rebels on Tuesday^[1038]. It was brought up against Hussey that his servant Cutler, when in the power of the rebels, had told them that his master was at their commandment^[1039], but as the rebels had two days before killed Lord Borough’s servant because his master opposed them, Cutler’s words were clearly an attempt to save his own life, and no weight could attach to them. Finally Hussey was said to have ordered his servants to hide his weapons, but the witness admitted that this was probably to keep them out of the rebels’ hands^[1040].

In Hussey’s case, as in Darcy’s, there was a second set of accusations which really had more foundation in fact. He had been in communication with the Imperial ambassador in 1534, although he had only sent him a single message of no importance^[1041]. His prosecutors laboured hard to prove his earlier offence. On his arrest he had uttered some imprudent words about the supper party with Darcy and Constable which had happened so long ago^[1042], but he gave a perfectly clear and simple account of what had passed there^[1043]. One witness was found who deposed that Hussey had said two years before that heresy would never be mended “without we fight,”^[1044] but even the crown lawyers could not consider this sufficient to condemn him, and in the end he was indicted only for his share in the Lincolnshire rising.

Lord Hussey was tried with Darcy, pleaded not guilty, and was condemned^[1045]. No one seems to have made any effort to obtain the 197King’s mercy on his behalf. If Norfolk had been in London he might have done something. His connection with Hussey was not very creditable to either, being based on the relationship which Norfolk’s mistress bore to Hussey, but it was useful, as he had interceded for Hussey before^[1046]. Norfolk went so far as to say that he was sorry for the sentence, though no doubt it was deserved^[1047]; the Duke suggested that Hussey might have sent the rebels information during the insurrection^[1048].

Hussey sent a petition to the King praying that his debts might be paid, and earnestly asserting his innocence, but he made no useless appeal for mercy^[1049]. He remained in the Tower until late in June, when the King resolved that he should be executed at Lincoln^[1050]. On 28 June he left the Tower on his last journey, in the custody of Sir Thomas Wentworth^[1051]. The King sent orders that he was to be beheaded and that the Duke of Suffolk must supervise his death, “which we desire may be done notably, with a declaration that of our clemency we have pardoned all the rest of the judgment.”^[1052] The exact date of his death is not known, but it did not have altogether the required effect of striking awe into the hearts of the people, as it was followed by a riot in the city, about which unfortunately no details are preserved^[1053].

Hussey’s fate was more sordidly tragic than Darcy’s. Darcy died a martyr to the faith which he loved; he desired nothing better than “so high perfection,” and to pity him would be an impertinence. But Hussey was killed merely to satisfy the causeless suspicion of the King and the malice of his enemies. There is even reason to suppose that his religious views had undergone some modification since he said he would be no heretic. No religious rites are mentioned in his last petition to the King^[1054], and a friend had shortly before promised to send him “a fair Bible.”^[1055] The evidence is slender, and the point is not of much importance; if we are right it serves to emphasise the needless cruelty of his death.

The trial of the other Pilgrims followed immediately after that of the two lords. On Wednesday 16 May 1537 at eight o’clock in the morning^[1056] Sir Francis Bigod, George Lumley, Sir John Bulmer, 198Margaret Cheyne alias Lady Bulmer, Ralph Bulmer, Sir Thomas Percy, Sir Stephen Hamerton, Sir Robert Constable and Robert Aske were tried in Westminster Hall^[1057] upon the indictment which had been returned as a true bill at York and ran as follows:—

“That [the prisoners] did, 10 October 28 Henry VIII [1536] as false traitors, with other traitors, at Sherburn, Yorks., conspire to deprive the King of his title of Supreme Head of the English Church, and to compel him to hold a certain Parliament and convocation of the clergy of the realm, and did commit divers insurrections etc. at Pontefract, divers days and times before the said 10 October. And at Doncaster, 20 October 28 Henry VIII, traitorously assembled to levy war, and so continued a long time. And although the King in his great mercy pardoned the said [prisoners] their offences committed before 10 December 28 Henry VIII; nevertheless they, persevering in their treasons, on 17 January 28 Henry VIII [1536–7] at Settrington, Templehurst, Flamborough, Beverley and elsewhere, after the same pardon, again falsely conspired for the above said purposes and to annul divers wholesome laws made for the common weal, and to depose the King; and to that end sent divers letters and messengers to each other, 18 January 28 Henry VIII, and at other days and times after the said pardon. And that Sir Francis Bigod and George Lumley, 21 January 28 Henry VIII, and divers days and times after the said pardon, at Settrington, Beverley, and Scarborough, and elsewhere, with a great multitude in arms, did make divers traitorous proclamations to call men to them to make war against the King, and having thereby assembled 500 persons, did, 22 January 28 Henry VIII, levy war against the King.

And thus the said jury say that Bigod and Lumley conspired to levy cruel war against the King. And moreover the said jury say that the others above named, 22 January 28 Henry VIII etc. falsely and traitorously abetted the said Bigod and Lumley in their said treasons.”^[1058]

The clumsy practice of including so many people accused of different offences under one vague indictment makes it necessary to disentangle each case in detail and in the order named above.

The Grey Friars’ Chronicler records that “On 13 March 1536–7 Sir Francis Bigod was brought out of the North to the Tower through Smithfield and in at Newgate, riding so through Cheapside and so to the Tower, and Sir Ralph Ellerker leading him by the hand with that he was bound withal.”^[1059] Bigod was in the Tower for a little less than three months, but the government was scandalously overcharged for his maintenance, as the Lieutenant put his charges down for six months at 10s. a week^[1060].

Before Sir Francis was sent up to London, he had been examined 199repeatedly by Norfolk, who was rather annoyed that, though Bigod did not disguise his own offence, he would not accuse anyone else except Gregory Conyers^[1061]. In his confession he was obliged to mention the names of his brother Ralph and a friend Thomas Wentworth, but he was careful to add, “and whereas I take testimony at [call to witness] my brother and Mr Wentworth, I trust you will bear them no displeasure, and if you send for them, do not say why, else the country and they will fear I have accused them as councillors in this naughty matter of Hallam’s and mine, of which [so] help me the blessed Body of God which yesterday I received, an they are any [sic] more guilty than the child unborn; so far as I know; and my mother, having no more children but us twain, would be too full of sorrow.” Bigod’s confession ended with a petition that, whatever his own fate might be, Norfolk would help two preachers, Mr Jherom, who had not his fellow for preaching, and one Cervington, “who in my country dare not come because he is a true favourer of God’s word; he is a proper gentleman and honest, and can do good service at a table among other qualities.”^[1062] So Sir Francis concluded, enigmatical to the last. He was about to die for the old religion, and his last written words are a commendation of the new. His former friend Latimer overlooked his backsliding and protected his widow and children^[1063].

Bigod’s accomplice George Lumley had been in the Tower since the beginning of February. He was examined there on 8 Feb. by Cromwell and Drs Tregonwell, Layton and Legh^[1064]. Nothing is known about the details of his imprisonment.

Sir Christopher Hailes, the Master of the Rolls, appeared against Bigod and Lumley at their trial^[1065]. They both pleaded not guilty, and were both condemned^[1066]. There can be no doubt as to the justice of their sentence; their offences were apparent and openly confessed by themselves. The simplicity of George Lumley’s conduct might have pleaded for him in more favourable circumstances, but where there was little hope of justice there was none at all of mercy. The King had a particular reason for his death. It had seemingly been decided that the government dared not attempt to arrest Lord Lumley, but he could be made to suffer for his offences through his son.

200After his trial George Lumley wrote to his wife to beg her to pay his debts, of which he enclosed a list. His letter continued:

“Be good mother and natural to my three children to whom I give God’s blessing and mine, desiring you further always to instruct my son to honour God and be obedient to His laws, and next God to give his diligent attendance to do his duty in loving, dreading and fearing his presence (? prince), observing his laws and to be obedient to them, and so doing I trust I shall pray in Heaven for you.”^[1067]

The Bulmers were not long in the Tower, as Sir John and his wife had been placed there on or after 21 April. Ralph Bulmer had been committed to the Fleet, whence he wrote to Sir Oswald Wolsthrope on 6 May that he doubted not but that the truth would justify the declaration of his allegiance to his sovereign^[1068]. Before the trial he was sent to join his father in the Tower^[1069]. Humphrey Browne serjeant-at-law conducted the prosecution against Sir John and Lady Bulmer, and John Baker the attorney-general against Ralph Bulmer^[1070].

The case against Sir John was fairly clear, although the most incriminating piece of evidence, his letter to his brother Sir William Bulmer, was not discovered until nine months after his death, when it came to light in consequence of a family quarrel. On 23 February 1537–8 Sir William visited his wife and had a violent dispute with her over some of her title deeds. After he had left her, she imagined that he might have taken possession of some valuable documents, and proceeded with the help of a servant and a friar to go through her husband’s papers. Among them she discovered Sir John’s letter, and seeing that it was treasonable, she laid it before the Council of the North, “as in duty bound,” said Bishop Tunstall^[1071]. Sir William was arrested and imprisoned in Pontefract Castle in consequence of her information, and from his examination some particulars of Sir John’s conduct appear, which were not known at his trial in 1537^[1072]. Nevertheless enough was proved by the evidence of his chaplain William Staynhus, who seems to have saved his life by turning King’s evidence against his master and mistress. He was corroborated to some extent by Lord Lumley, John Watts, and Ralph Bulmer’s confession^[1073].

Just before the trial Norfolk sent up to London some papers which he had seized at Sir John Bulmer’s house. He admitted that these letters had been written before the pardon, but said that they showed that “no man had a more cankered heart” than Sir John, for 201“I think ye never read more lewd nor more malicious letters which I, Babthorpe, Thirleby and Uvedale every of us have perused his part for haste.”^[1074] No letters which correspond with this description have been preserved. They must have been written to Sir John, unless he, like Darcy, kept copies of his own letters, of which there is no proof. Most of the letters to Sir John which are still extant were written after the pardon and are very loyal in tone^[1075]. There is also a collection of deeds relating to the Bulmer estates^[1076], and one family letter^[1077]. The only papers which could be turned against Sir John Bulmer relate to the monastery of Guisborough; one was the order sent by the Pilgrims’ council of York, which directed Sir John to maintain the Prior of Guisborough in the enjoyment of his office, and the other was an appeal sent by the Prior to Sir John for help in the management of his unruly monks^[1078]. As the Prior had been put in by Cromwell, this appeal is evidence rather in favour of Sir John, but it was very dangerous for any gentleman to meddle in the affairs of a monastery, and an equally innocent document was sufficient to cost the lives of Percy, Hamerton and Tempest. It may be, therefore, that these were the lewd letters to which Norfolk referred.

Sir John Bulmer had not borne arms against the King since the pardon, but he had become involved in a succession of plots, none of them sufficiently well-contrived for success, but each enough to cost him his life. His case shows the danger which the over-severity of the law brought upon the government. Sir John had been drawn into treason by accident. There is no proof that he desired Sir Francis Bigod’s confidence, or that he wished to help him. His original crime was a natural reluctance to hand his nephew over to the executioner. Knowing that the government would refuse to take this into consideration, he was driven by terror and despair from plot to plot, whereas if he could have expected mercy, he would probably have committed himself no further.

The charges against Margaret and Ralph Bulmer rested only on the evidence of William Staynhus and Sir John himself, the two men whom above all others they must have believed to be most trustworthy^[1079]. It is not just to blame Sir John too much for this. In his written confession he neither admitted his own guilt nor accused anyone else. He offered to find a hidden treasure for the King, which was perhaps as good a defence as any^[1080]. But a weak-willed, impetuous 202man of his type must have been helpless under cross-examination. He was brought to confess his own offences, and those of his family, although against the will of his judges he persisted in calling Margaret his wife to the last^[1081]. Their union may have been irregular, but it was founded on sincere affection. Margaret knew all his plans; she hoped for success while success was possible, and when all had failed she counselled him to fly and save both their lives. Sir William Bulmer’s lawful wife dutifully betrayed him. Margaret was faithful to the last. She seems to have given no evidence and made no confession.

Ralph Bulmer was accused both of foreknowledge of Bigod’s rising and of sending treasonable messages from London. The only witness against him who is named is his father^[1082].

At the trial Sir John and Margaret pleaded not guilty, but Ralph’s plea is not recorded. After the jury had retired, however, they withdrew their plea and substituted guilty. In consequence of this the jury was exonerated from giving a verdict and they were both condemned, Sir John to the usual penalty for treason, Margaret to be burnt. The jury was also exonerated from giving a verdict in Ralph’s case, and he was re-committed to the Tower^[1083]. His name remains carved on the wall in the Beauchamp Tower. He was still imprisoned there in the following year and it is not certain when, if ever, he was released^[1084].

Sir Thomas Percy and his brother Sir Ingram had come up to London immediately after Norfolk’s arrival in the north. As they were perfectly well aware that the King was anxious to get rid of them, the very fact of their coming shows a strong conviction of innocence. There are two points in Sir Thomas’ behaviour since the pardon which are suspicious, but it is a remarkable circumstance that neither of these is mentioned in the notes for the proceedings against him. The first was his interview with William Leache, the Lincolnshire fugitive, as deposed by George Shuttleworth. The second was the meeting at Rothbury in January, at which he was alleged to have forced some gentlemen to take the Pilgrims’ oath. As neither of these charges was brought forward, it must be concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support them. There was in fact nothing to show what passed between Sir Thomas and Leache; it is not even certain that he knew who Leache was, as the fugitive may have concealed his name. The evidence with regard to the Rothbury meeting rests on an unsigned paper which was 203probably drawn up by Sir Reynold Carnaby, the Percys’ mortal enemy.

The charges which were brought against Sir Thomas might be substantiated by evidence, but they were of a very trivial character in themselves, as they rested merely upon letters which had been sent to him, for which he could not justly be considered responsible. The prosecution laid great stress on the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication, yet it was not only harmless in itself, but Sir Thomas could not possibly have prevented the Abbot from writing and sending it. Sir Thomas’ reply was non-committal, and the only accusation which could be founded upon it was that he had not arrested the messenger, a step for which there was no apparent reason^[1085].

The second incriminating document was Bigod’s letter, which was forwarded to Sir Thomas by his mother. To this he had returned no answer, and he declared that it was respect for his mother which had prevented him from arresting the messenger, her servant^[1086].

The third alleged letter was a very mysterious one, connected with the rising in Richmondshire. Ninian Staveley deposed that the Abbot of Jervaux and the quondam Abbot of Fountains ordered himself, Middleton, Lobley and Servant to send a message to Sir Thomas Percy, bidding him come forward. They sent a servant to Northumberland, after Twelfth Day [6 January 1536–7], and the man told them on his return that Sir Thomas had written down their names and had said that he would send for them when he came to the country. Both the abbots denied that they had sent any such message^[1087]. Sir Thomas never referred to the matter in his deposition, and the supposed messenger was never named or produced. Staveley was quite untrustworthy, and it is probable that the story was a mere invention.

Sir Thomas was further charged with his disorderly behaviour in Northumberland^[1088], and with George Lumley’s statement that he was the “lock, key and ward of this matter.”^[1089] There were some grounds for the first of these two charges, although it rested on the testimony of his enemy. As for the second, Lumley had been careful to explain that he was describing Sir Thomas’ influence in Yorkshire, and did not mean that he had any particular knowledge of the new insurrection.

204Sir Stephen Hamerton came up to London as unsuspiciously as Sir Thomas Percy. He was examined in the Tower on 25 April by Tregonwell, Layton and Legh^[1090]. The only points alleged against him were the occurrence of his name in the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication and his meeting with the Abbot’s messenger^[1091]. Even the prosecution admitted that in this there was no matter against him except before the pardon^[1092], but as usual it was laid to his charge that he had not arrested the messenger^[1093]. A modern lawyer might as well accuse a man of failing to arrest the postman who delivered a letter containing a forged cheque. There was a general feeling in the north that messengers ought to have something of the privilege of heralds; their exemption from responsibility was both convenient and just, as they were servants who were obliged to obey their masters’ orders, and did not necessarily know the contents of the letters that they carried. The government was doing its best to destroy this privileged position.

John Hynde, King’s serjeant-at-law, who had been so successful in Lincolnshire, conducted the prosecution of Sir Thomas Percy and Sir Stephen Hamerton^[1094]. Like the Bulmers they first pleaded not guilty, and then withdrew the plea and substituted guilty^[1095]. There is something suspicious in this change. The King was always anxious to obtain a confession of guilt from those whom he intended to execute, and he did not care what means were employed to attain his object. It is possible that the prisoners were induced to plead guilty by the promise of a mitigated sentence.

Sir Stephen Hamerton was probably a victim to his feud with the Stanleys^[1096]. No other reason can be found for his condemnation, as the extant evidence against him is trifling and he had not distinguished himself during the insurrection. The Earl of Derby had done Henry good service; he probably interested himself in his cousin’s quarrel, and if he asked for any favour from the King, such as the life of a man, he was not likely to be refused. Sir Stephen’s son Henry Hamerton died about two months after his father; it was said that his death was caused by grief at his father’s execution^[1097].

Sir Robert Constable was arrested about the same time as Lord Darcy^[1098]. He was examined, but his answers have not been preserved^[1099]. 205The evidence against him was of the slightest description. He had been present at the famous dinner party when Darcy, Hussey, and he declared themselves no heretics^[1100], but there was and is nothing to show that he knew of Darcy’s communications with Chapuys.

At the beginning of the Lincolnshire rising he “took Philips, a captain of the commons of Lincolnshire, servant to Lord Hussey, and brought him to the lords at Nottingham.” They sent Sir Robert to pacify the East Riding, with orders to join Darcy at Pontefract “if the commons were in great number.” He was in the Castle when it was surrendered, but he could not be considered responsible for the act of the commander^[1101].

The principal evidence against him was based on the letters which he had received from and sent to Bigod^[1102]. In particular Bigod had said that there was no man whom the commons trusted so much as Constable^[1103]. In his reply Sir Robert urged Bigod to give up his purpose. The concluding words of his letter, in the original draft which is in Aske’s handwriting, were “Thus in all your worshipful affairs our Lord be your governor.”^[1104] It is very much to be wished that the history of this draft could be traced. Perhaps after writing it Aske handed it over to a servant to be copied. This was Lord Darcy’s method of letter-writing. The copy would be sent to Bigod, and the original would remain in the possession of Sir Robert Constable, at whose house it was written. The copy might fall into the hands of the government when Bigod’s, and the draft when Constable’s, papers were seized^[1105]. But the copy, if it ever existed, has not been preserved.

There is a reason for this theorising. At Constable’s trial a certified copy of the letter was produced, but it does not tally with the draft. The most important difference is in the conclusion, which, in the certified copy, runs “Thus in your worshipful affair, our Lord be your governor.”^[1106] The prosecution, of course, insisted that Bigod’s “worshipful affair” was the insurrection, and that Constable was praying for its success. The phrase “all your worshipful affairs” has much less significance. Unless the theory outlined above is accepted as the history of the letter, the certified copy must have been deliberately altered from the original draft to strengthen the case against Sir Robert. On the other hand, if a copy of the original draft was sent to Bigod, it may have contained whether by accident or 206intention, the slight but important variation in the conclusion. Yet if such a version were in the possession of the government there seems no necessity for a certified copy.

Constable was accused, like Darcy, of saying that the King had promised a general pardon and a free parliament. He had also told the commons to stay only until the Duke of Norfolk came^[1107]. To this he replied that such were the King’s orders: “The King’s letters to me were to stay the country till the Duke of Norfolk’s coming, and so I did.”^[1108] But it was useless to plead his own orders to Henry when he did not choose to acknowledge them.

Constable’s letter which requested Rudston to liberate Bigod’s messengers was brought forward, and also the mythical letter to the mayor of Hull for the deliverance of Hallam^[1109]. These letters have been discussed above^[1110].

Finally Constable was one of the leaders to whom Levening had appealed, and in his case, as in the others, Levening’s acquittal was overlooked^[1111].

When the prisoners were brought out of the Tower for trial, a mistake was made in the destination of Sir Robert Constable and Lady Bulmer, who were sent first to the Guild Hall. The trial took place in Westminster Hall, and the two mis-sent prisoners were despatched thither^[1112]. At the trial Sir Thomas Willoughby, serjeant-at-law, appeared against both Constable and Aske^[1113]. Sir Robert pleaded not guilty and maintained the plea, whatever inducements may have been used to make him withdraw it. The jury returned a verdict of guilty^[1114].

Sir Marmaduke Constable the younger was honourably free from the fear or coldness which kept the relations of the other prisoners from exertions on their behalf. He was now in London doing what he could for his father, who wrote to tell him how to use in his favour all the influence at court which the Constable family possessed. Sir Robert had hopes of obtaining the intercession of Lord Beauchamp, the Earl of Rutland, and the Queen, to whom he was distantly related. If all were in vain he charged his son to see that his debts were paid^[1115]. Sir Robert petitioned Cromwell, not for his life, but for the payment of these debts. He had no money himself; it had all been 207spent during his imprisonment, for prisoners had to maintain themselves in the Tower, as the government allowance went into the Lieutenant’s pocket. Four gentlemen had lately been Sir Robert’s sureties for a payment to the King, and he particularly desired that they should not be allowed to lose by their bond; “Alas, that these poor gentlemen that were so lately bound for me and never had profit by me should be undone!”^[1116] The matter weighed upon his mind, and before his death he sent in another list of his debts^[1117].

Robert Aske went up to London on 24 March^[1118]. He knew that he was going into danger, and left a horse at Buntingford in order that he might send back a message as to how he fared^[1119]. It need hardly be explained that this cannot have been with any idea of a fresh rising, as all the other leaders came up to London at the same time; it was simply a private means of communication with his friends. On 7 April 1537 he was arrested and committed to the Tower^[1120]. He was repeatedly examined and both the interrogatories and the replies have fortunately been preserved^[1121]. It is easy to see why this happened. Darcy’s and Constable’s examinations can have been only of personal interest, but Aske’s were of real value to the government. They describe the state of the north and the whole course of the rebellion as seen by a very thoughtful and able man. In writing his long, careful answers to the interrogatories Aske perhaps cherished to the last a desperate hope that he might do some good to his country. His cause had failed, his life was forfeit, but his words might still be carried to the King’s ear and might have some effect. His most elaborate replies were begun on 11 April, almost immediately after his arrest and imprisonment, and were continued on the 15th. His next set, undated, but written later, concluded with a partly illegible petition to his examiners:

“I most humbly beseech you all to be so good unto me ... measures or by your favor to my lord privey ... yt mr ... tenant myght discherg my comyns to myn hostes as ... might know ... whether I might send for my rentes or fees or not without any ... disples ... to any man for onles the kinges highnes and my lord privey seall be mercifull and gracius unto me.... I am not able to lyf for non of my frendes will not do nothing for me, and I have ned to have a payre of hous a 208dublet of fusthean a shirt for I have but one shirt her and a pare of showes I beseech you hertely that I may know your mynd herin and how I shalbe ordered yt I may trust to the same for the luf of god.”^[1122]

No attention was paid to this pitiful appeal. On 11 May Aske was examined for the last time by Dr Legh and John ap Rice. At the end of his replies is another petition:

“Good mr doctor I beseech you to send me mony and my stuf as a shirt a paire of hous a dublite and a paire of shown for nether I have mony nor ger to were as ye sawe yourself for the reverence of god send me the same or els I know not how to do nor lyf and that mr pollerd be remembred for the same.”^[1123]

Aske had now been more than a month in the Tower without the common necessities of life. He remained there about two months longer, and some sort of allowance must have been made to him, as the King wanted him to be kept alive for the royal purposes.

There was one charge against Aske which, if it could have been proved, would have warranted his condemnation, but it was not discovered until after his execution and was never properly investigated. On 2 August 1537 the Bishop of Rochester informed Cromwell that he had arrested at Bromley a priest called Matthew Fisher, who confessed that he had fled from the north at Whitsuntide. This priest stated that on Midlent Sunday, 11 March 1536–7, the captains of “his country” had received letters from Aske which ordered them to rise again, and 400 men had mustered, he himself being among them. The Bishop added that he believed there were other fugitives in his diocese who had fled from the north when Aske was arrested^[1124]. There seems to be no foundation for this vague story. The Bishop never mentioned the name of Fisher’s “country,” but it is certain that in Midlent Aske was riding in Norfolk’s train under close surveillance^[1125]. The reports from the north on and after 11 March are full, and not a word is said of any stirring^[1126], while the royal lieutenants were so anxiously watchful that it was impossible for 400 men to muster without some report reaching one of them. The Bishop, who may not have been very well informed about northern affairs, probably misunderstood Fisher, who was perhaps concerned in the Cumberland or the Richmond rising; or possibly Fisher was one of the half-insane informers who appear from time to time.

Apart from this, the evidence against Aske is the same which has been repeated with wearisome regularity in the cases of Darcy 209and Constable. There is a certain probability that Aske knew about the intended rebellion before it broke out, but there was no proof of this foreknowledge then and there is none now. Aske had taken a small part in the Lincolnshire rebellion, but for that the King had expressly pardoned him^[1127]. It was objected against him that during the insurrection he made himself the chief rebel and that at the same time he had “a proud and traitorous heart,”^[1128] but for this also the King had pardoned him.

By Norfolk’s advice Aske was questioned as to what had become of his money, “for he received no small sums in these countries of abbots, priors and others during the insurrection.”^[1129] It was highly characteristic that Norfolk should imagine Aske to have been quietly feathering his own nest by extortions from the religious houses which he was nominally defending, but an insurrection is a costly affair and Aske had spent all the money he could obtain as fast as he received it on necessary expenses. He had made a declaration of the spoils that he had shared in when he was at Court, and the King was then “gracious to him therein.”^[1130]

As Aske’s replies are preserved, some of the evidence which was brought against both himself and Darcy is discredited. He had received no message from Darcy on going up to London for the first time^[1131], and he had informed Norfolk of Levening’s petition^[1132]. Like Constable he was charged with an attempt to secure the liberation of Hallam and of Bigod’s messengers^[1133], and with bidding the commons stay only till the Duke of Norfolk’s coming^[1134].

The chief point against him, as against the others, was that in the middle of January he still expected that there would be a parliament, convocation and a general pardon; thereby showing that if his “unreasonable requests” were not granted, he would “revive his traitor’s heart.”^[1135] He had written to Darcy on 8 January 1536–7 that the King had granted free election of knights and burgesses, and free speech in convocation. He concluded, “Trusting your Lordship shall perceive I have done my duty as well to the King’s grace, under his favour, as also to my country, and have played my part, and thereby I trust all England shall rejoice.” This was held to prove that “he continues in his traitor’s heart and rejoices in his treasons, and it is to be noted that he, by writing of the same letter, 210committeth a new treason.”^[1136] He also committed a new treason by saying to the commons “your reasonable petitions shall be ordered in parliament.”^[1137]

Although it was plainly treason that Aske should believe the King’s promise, it was also treason to write that “it was reported the King would not be as good as he promised concerning the church lands.”^[1138] This lost letter of Aske’s has already been discussed^[1139].

These accusations were based chiefly on the papers which had been seized at Aske’s lodgings in London when he was arrested^[1140]. He does not seem to have kept copies of the letters which he wrote, except in the case of one manifesto^[1141]. There are only thirteen letters preserved which were written to him and of these seven are copies which were in the possession of other people^[1142]. The remaining six must have been found in his rooms^[1143]. The leader of a prolonged insurrection must have had many more documents than this meagre number. When he was interrogated about them his reply was, “To his remembrance they [the papers] be in his chamber in his brother’s house and in the chamber in Wressell Castle where he lay; albeit he thinks there be few at Wressell, but they be all in his said chamber or else in some other place in his brother’s house, where his servants left them. Also he thinks there be some in a little coffer which his niece keeps, which is plated with silver [?] ... there unlocked in his brother’s house at Aughton.... Also there be bills of complaint betwixt party and party during that time in a little trussing coffer in his said niece’s chamber, albeit to his remembrance they be but of small effect touching any article of the petitions or requirements, and if he can remember there be any writings in any other place, he shall always declare the same as it cometh to his remembrance.”^[1144]

With these ample directions Norfolk caused the papers at Aughton to be seized, but a certain mystery envelopes their fate. On the day of the trial, 17 May, Cromwell wrote to Norfolk for the papers, which he had expected to receive long before. Norfolk’s reply was curiously shuffling. He expressed deep regret that they had not been sent earlier. He had devoted all one night to reading them, with two helpers, and he had believed that they were sent up to London long ago. The bearer of the letter would explain how 211they had been forgotten. Amid all these apologies Norfolk never said that he was now sending or that he would send the papers^[1145]. They have never been discovered, and it is probable that they never left the north. A great many people there must have been interested in their suppression, and Norfolk may have been bribed to destroy them, or they may even have been stolen. In any case they certainly were not produced at the trial.

Aske, like Constable, pleaded not guilty; both were found guilty and condemned to death^[1146].

The other prisoners, James Cockerell, quondam Prior of Guisborough, Nicholas Tempest of Bashall, William Wood, Prior of Bridlington, John Pickering of Lythe, clerk, John Pickering of Bridlington, friar, Adam Sedbar, Abbot of Jervaux, and William Thirsk, quondam Abbot of Fountains, were brought up for trial on the same indictment, but were remanded until the next day, Thursday 17 May^[1147].

James Cockerell, the quondam Prior of Guisborough, was arrested shortly after Easter by Sir Ralph Evers^[1148], and was on his way up to London as a prisoner on 19 April^[1149].

The case against him was, first, that about Martinmas Sir Francis Bigod had attempted to restore him to his house^[1150]; this was covered by the pardon.

Second, he had read and praised Sir Francis’ book about the royal supremacy since the pardon. He confessed that he had read the book, but denied that he had praised it^[1151].

Third, he had heard Sir Francis throw doubts upon the King’s pardon^[1152].

The only witness against him who is mentioned was Sir Francis Bigod; the prosecution was conducted by John Baker, the attorney-general^[1153]. Cockerell pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty by the jury^[1154]. Under the new law of treason the fact that he listened to Sir Francis’ book without arresting the author was sufficient to constitute his guilt.

Orders were sent to Norfolk for the arrest of Nicholas Tempest, to which he replied on 31 March that if Tempest were summoned to London he would go without hesitation, as he was in no fear^[1155]. Accordingly he was summoned, together with Sir Stephen Hamerton 212and the Prior of Bridlington, on 7 April^[1156]. It was no wonder that he went without fear, as the sole charge against him was that he had been mentioned in the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication to Sir Thomas Percy, which even the prosecution admitted was “no apparent matter against” him^[1157]. It was stated in general terms that he was a “principal doer in the second insurrection,” but of this there was absolutely no evidence^[1158]. He was accused of maintaining the Abbot of Sawley, and in particular it was said that he had sent provisions to the monastery, but this was during the first insurrection and ought to have been covered by the pardon^[1159]. William Whorwood, the solicitor-general, appeared against him at the trial^[1160]. Tempest pleaded not guilty, but was condemned^[1161]. It is probable that he owed his death to the feud between his family and the Savilles. Sir Henry Saville had been loyal during the insurrection, and he was now reaping his reward. He had the ear of the Government, and was able to dispose of his enemies who had joined the rebels^[1162]. There does not appear to have been any other reason for Nicholas Tempest’s death, as he was both innocent and inconspicuous.

William Wood, the Prior of Bridlington, came unsuspiciously up to London with Nicholas Tempest. There was, however, a little more evidence against him than against his companion. He was accused of giving aid to Lumley during his occupation of Scarborough in the second insurrection. The Prior’s defence was that on hearing the first news of the rising he had warned Matthew Boynton; that he agreed with the neighbouring gentlemen to defend Bridlington against the rebels, that he had called out his own men for this purpose, and that he had endeavoured to prevent them from joining the rebels^[1163]. Matthew Boynton did not altogether bear out this story. He said that he had sent to the Prior for help to take Bigod and that the Prior had refused it to him. The Prior replied that he had needed all his men for his own protection^[1164].

The Prior’s chief offence had been committed during the Pilgrimage. He had read and praised Friar Pickering’s rhyme beginning “O faithful people,” and had given money to the insurgents^[1165]. The King was exceedingly sensitive to ballad criticism, and the Prior’s conduct during Bigod’s rising was sufficiently suspicious to 213give an excuse for bringing him to the scaffold. The solicitor-general conducted the case against the Prior^[1166], who pleaded not guilty, but was condemned^[1167].

John Pickering of Pickering Lythe, clerk, seems to have been arrested solely because he was Sir Francis Bigod’s chaplain^[1168]. He was imprisoned in the Marshalsea, where on 2 June he made a deposition against the Bulmers, although they had been executed the week before^[1169]. No evidence against him has been preserved. He pleaded not guilty, and was condemned^[1170], but eventually he was pardoned^[1171].

Friar John Pickering, his namesake, was a prominent Pilgrim, and the author of the popular rhyme just referred to. He had attended the council of divines at Pontefract, and had argued against the royal supremacy^[1172]. From the first it was known that he had taken part in Bigod’s insurrection, and the King ordered his arrest on 22 February^[1173]. For a short while he evaded pursuit^[1174], but he was captured and despatched to London before 22 March^[1175]. He confessed to carrying messages from Bigod to Hallam, and to informing Bigod about the state of Durham^[1176]. In his case, at any rate, there was no miscarriage of justice. He had worked for his cause until the last, and had failed.

Adam Sedbar, the Abbot of Jervaux, was arrested early in March^[1177] and sent up to the Tower, where his name may still be seen inscribed on the wall. He was not a popular landlord, and had taken part in the Pilgrimage to some extent against his will. He was examined twice, first on 25 April and again on 24 May, just before his execution. He maintained his innocence to the last, and declared that the insurrection had little to do with religion, but was the work of the discontented commons^[1178].

The case against him was as follows:—

(1) About Christmas he had sent a servant into Lincolnshire to report on the state of the country. The servant brought back word that the Lincolnshire men were “busily hanged,” and on this news the Abbot began to plot a new insurrection.

214(2) He gave money to Ninian Staveley and others for the purpose of inducing them to rebel.

(3) He ordered Staveley to send a message to Sir Thomas Percy that he must come forward to help the Abbot in the new rising.

(4) When the men of Richmondshire rose, the Abbot sent his servants to join them, and promised them further help^[1179].

The Abbot’s defence was:—

(1) He had sent the servant to Lincolnshire only to collect the rents belonging to the Abbey and for no other purpose.

(2) He had ordered money to be given to Staveley and his companion by way of a tip, because they had been trying to find some lost sheep belonging to the Abbey.

(3) He had never sent or ordered a message to Sir Thomas Percy.

(4) He knew nothing about the Richmondshire insurrection until the commons surrounded the Abbey and insisted upon carrying off his servants. As soon as they had gone, the Abbot fled to Bolton Castle, where he remained with Lord Scrope until the tumult was over^[1180].

Staveley and Middleton, the witnesses against the Abbot, were men of bad character, and on the whole it is probable that the Abbot’s defence was true and that his only crime was his office.

William Thirsk, the quondam Abbot of Fountains, lived at Jervaux, and was involved in the same charges as Sedbar^[1181]. His defence was the same and was equally sound. Both were found guilty and condemned to death^[1182].

On Friday 25 May 1537 Sir John Bulmer, Sir Stephen Hamerton, Nicholas Tempest, James Cockerell, the quondam Prior of Guisborough, William Thirsk, the quondam Abbot of Fountains, and Pickering were executed at Tyburn. Bulmer and Hamerton enjoyed the privilege of their knighthood and “were but hanged and headed.” The others suffered the full penalty of the law. Their heads were set on London Bridge and the gates of London^[1183].

These executions had, on the whole, a settling effect on the country. The reformers were delighted. The large and powerful class who desired peace above everything were reassured. Most of the 215conservatives were frightened into silence. But one Yorkshire man called William Moke, who was present at the executions, felt such indignation that when he heard Sir Richard Tempest and Thomas Grice were summoned to London he set out at once to warn them not to come. He foolishly mentioned his object at an inn in Lincolnshire, and as innkeepers were among the best of Cromwell’s sources of information, Moke was at once arrested and brought back to London^[1184].

On the day when Sir John Bulmer died, 25 May, another execution took place. Lady Bulmer, or Margaret Cheyne as she was called, was drawn after the other prisoners from the Tower to Smithfield and there burnt. Burning was the ancient penalty for treason in the case of a woman, but it was seldom exacted. The poor women in Somersetshire, for instance, suffered the same fate as the men. The death of Margaret caused some sensation at the time. There is a touch of pathos even in the dry record of Wriothesley’s Chronicle; she was burnt, he says, “according to her judgment, God pardon her soul, being the Friday in Whitsun week: she was a very fair creature and a beautiful.”^[1185] At Thame in Oxfordshire her fate was discussed on the Sunday before she died. Robert Jons said that it was a pity she should suffer. John Strebilhill, the informer, answered, “It is no pity, if she be a traitor to her prince, but that she should have after her deserving.” This warned Jons to be careful, and he merely replied, “Let us speak no more of this matter, for men may be blamed for speaking the truth.”^[1186]

Froude says, “Lady Bulmer seems from the depositions to have deserved as serious punishment as any woman for the crime of high treason can be said to have deserved.” The depositions show only that she believed the commons were ready to rebel again, and that the Duke of Norfolk alone could prevent the new rebellion. In addition to this she kept her husband’s secrets and tried to save his life. She committed no overt act of treason; her offences were merely words and silence. The reason for her execution does not lie in the heinous nature of her offence, but Henry was not gratuitously cruel, and her punishment had an object. It was intended as an example to others. There can be no doubt that many women were ardent supporters of the Pilgrimage. Lady Hussey and the dowager Countess of Northumberland were both more guilty than Lady Bulmer. Other names have occurred from time to time, Mistress 216Stapleton, old Sir Marmaduke Constable’s wife, who sheltered Levening^[1187], and young Lady Evers. But these were all ladies of blameless character and of respectable, sometimes powerful, families. Henry knew that in the excited state of public opinion it would be dangerous to meddle with them. His reign was not by any means an age of chivalry, but there still remained a good deal of the old tribal feeling about women, that they were the most valuable possessions of the clan, and that if any stranger, even the King, touched them all the men of the clan were disgraced. An illustration of this occurred in Scotland during the same year (1537). James V brought to trial, condemned, and burnt Lady Glamis on a charge of high treason^[1188]. She was a lady of great family and James brought upon himself and his descendants a feud which lasted for more than sixty years^[1189].

James’ uncle Henry VIII was more politic. He selected as the demonstration of his object-lesson to husbands, which should teach them to distrust their wives, and to wives, which should teach them to dread their husbands’ confidence, a woman of no family and irregular life, dependent on the head of a falling house. This insignificance, which might have saved a man, was in her case an additional danger. She had no avenger but her baby son, and we only hear of one friendly voice raised to pity her death. The King’s object-lesson was most satisfactorily accomplished.

On Saturday 2 June 1537 Sir Thomas Percy, Sir Francis Bigod, George Lumley, Adam Sedbar the Abbot of Jervaux, and William Wood the Prior of Bridlington were executed at Tyburn. Sir Thomas Percy was beheaded, and was buried at the church of the Crutched Friars on Tower Hill^[1190]; the others suffered the full penalty and their heads were exposed on London Bridge and elsewhere^[1191].

Darcy, Hussey, Aske and Constable were still in the Tower, but with these exceptions the end of the treason trials and executions had been reached.

It is customary at this point to comment on the stolid indifference of the general public to such events, but a study of contemporary depositions shows that this placidity has been rather over-rated. Short of another insurrection, there was no way in which sympathy could be expressed with the sufferers; the lightest words laid a man at the mercy of any chance informer. Yet a perceptible murmur followed the death of the northern men. Thomas Strangways, 217Thomas Neville, William Moke, Robert Jons, Lord Delaware, Lord Cobham and Lord Montague each in his way uttered a protest which must have voiced the feelings of many others who dared not speak or who escaped detection. The feeling of Scotland was probably expressed by the Bishop of Aberdeen. “Ye have put down many good Christian men,” he said to an English pursuivant, and when the latter protested, added, “ye that are poor men are good, but the heads are the worst.”^[1192] The Spanish Chronicler, who seems to have come to England a few years later and depended for his information entirely on hearsay, never even mentions the second insurrection. His story is that the people were pacified by the King’s promises, that as soon as there was no danger of any further rising Aske was persuaded by fair words to reveal the names of those who had helped him, and that the King then threw off the mask and caused all the leaders to be executed^[1193].

The attitude of the King’s apologists is also very significant. Knowing that Henry’s conduct was always severely criticised in France, Cromwell wrote to Sir Thomas Wyatt, the English ambassador there, that he must affirm that, although it was true Darcy and the others had been pardoned, yet they had all most ungratefully offended again and were justly sentenced to death. If it had not been for their second treason, the King would never have remembered their former crime^[1194]. In 1546 William Thomas wrote a panegyric of Henry VIII in the form of a dialogue between an Englishman and an Italian. The Italian objects against Henry, “After the Insurrection in the North, when he had pardoned the first rebellers against him, contrary unto his promise did he not cause a number of the most noble of them, by divers torments to be put to death?” Thomas of course makes the usual answer, that they had offended a second time^[1195]; but the objection shows that the executions were not accepted as just, and were not forgotten, or Thomas would have had no occasion to allude to them. Finally the Yorkshire Chronicler, Wilfred Holme, begins by stating that the pardon was not universal:—

“And to the Duke of Norfolk’s intercession

There was granted a pardon and that general,

From Don to Tweed for their whole transgression

Of all contempts and trespasses as well as things vital

Nine only reserved.”

218But he presently adds that later these nine were also pardoned at Norfolk’s intercession^[1196].

Considering the conditions of the period it may be said that this was quite a powerful body of criticism to be directed against Henry. He was exceedingly sensitive to public opinion, and although he had still a number of prisoners on his hands the executions ceased. There was a simpler way of disposing of the prisoners which attracted less attention. The plague was raging in London, and a few months in one of the prisons were enough to prevent anyone obnoxious to the King from troubling his Majesty again.

Sir Richard Tempest’s case illustrates this point. On 11 March 1536–7 the Earl of Sussex reported to Norfolk that Sir Richard “was neither good first nor last.”^[1197] He was accused of having called out the men of Halifax before 10 October 1536^[1198], which was the date of the beginning of the insurrection for the purposes of the pardon. A letter of his to Sir George Darcy was discovered in which he declared that he would take Lord Darcy’s part against any lord in England^[1199]. Sir Richard Tempest was summoned to appear in London during Trinity term to answer these charges, or others^[1200]. William Moke’s warning never reached him^[1201], and on 2 June 1537 Norfolk thanked Cromwell for telling him that the King “did not much favour” Sir Richard^[1202]. Tempest came up to London and was thrown into the Fleet. He petitioned Cromwell to be released on bail, because he was in jeopardy of his life, “the weather is so hot and contagious and the plague so sore in the city.”^[1203] His petition was disregarded and on 25 August he died. “He willed his heart to be taken out of his body and carried to his own country, to be buried in the place he had prepared for his corpse and his wife’s to lie in.”^[1204]

Some prisoners fared better than this. William Aclom’s name is mentioned among those who were accused of treason^[1205], but he was not included in the indictment. Leonard Beckwith summoned him before the Court of Star Chamber for robberies committed during the insurrection^[1206] and Aclom was imprisoned in the Fleet until his case should be tried. He made himself comfortable there by marrying 219the sister of the keeper, with the result that Beckwith complained Aclom had “a very small imprisonment.”^[1207]

Aclom’s case was exceptional and several of the other prisoners must have died. Thomas Strangways was sick at the time of his arrest, and did not long survive^[1208]. Robert Thompson the vicar of Brough-under-Stainmoor was arrested before 24 February. Norfolk proposed that he should be tried and executed at Carlisle, although there was no proof that he had taken any part in the second insurrection, except that he had once prayed for the Pope^[1209]. Thompson was sent up to London on 8 March^[1210], and was examined in the Tower on 20 March^[1211]. He was never brought to trial, but from the Tower he was transferred to the King’s Bench Prison where he found “his body ... what with years, what with corrupt and stinking smells, what with cold and hunger, so sore pricked” that he earnestly petitioned Cromwell for mercy. The petition is endorsed “no” and the vicar was left to die in his miserable prison^[1212]. Sir Ingram Percy was imprisoned in the Tower at the same time as his brother Sir Thomas. There was no evidence of any kind that he had offended since the pardon, but he was kept a prisoner in the Tower for about a year. There he carved his name and motto

“Ingram Percy. Sara fidele.” [I will be faithful.]

He was probably released in November 1538^[1213], when there was a rumour that he had fled to Scotland, but this was unfounded. His health must have been completely broken, for he never returned to the north and died in a few months. His will, dated 7 June 1538, was proved at Canterbury on 21 March 1538–9^[1214].

The fate of the other prisoners is unknown. Some must have saved themselves by turning King’s evidence, as for instance Staynhus and Staveley. Richard Bowier did so well in this respect that although in March Norfolk had called him “as naughty a knave as any,”^[1215] in the summer he was petitioning Cromwell for a grant of monastic lands^[1216]. There were others who probably shared the fate of Robert Thompson in prison. A case was carefully made out against William 220Collins, the bailiff of Kendal, who was certainly guilty^[1217]. He was examined in the Tower on 12 April 1537^[1218], but after that nothing more is heard of him, saving that in a list of Cromwell’s memoranda, probably drawn up in July 1537, there occurs the item, “for Collins, bailiff of Kendal.”^[1219]

It remains, in Henry’s words, “to knit up this tragedy,” and to conclude with the fate of the two principals, Sir Robert Constable and Robert Aske. They remained in the Tower after the trial on 16 May for more than a month. The King made up his mind on 12 June that they should be executed in the north^[1220]; Constable, who had held Hull, was to be hanged there in chains, and Aske was to be executed at York “where he was in his greatest and most frantic glory.” It was decided that they should be sent with Lord Hussey to Lincolnshire, in order that their appearance might be a warning to the rebellious people there^[1221]. On 28 June the three prisoners left the Tower under the escort of Sir Thomas Wentworth^[1222]. At Huntingdon they were delivered to Sir William Parr, who conveyed them to Lincoln, where Hussey was handed over to the Duke of Suffolk. Parr conveyed Constable and Aske to Hull, where they were transferred to the custody of the Duke of Norfolk^[1223].

Sir Robert Constable was kept in Hull until the next market day, in order that his end should have all possible publicity. He was asked whether his written confession contained all that he knew about the insurrection. He answered that he had omitted some “naughty words and high cracks which my lord Darcy had blown out,” because he did not wish to repeat them while Darcy was alive. “He was in doubt whether he had offended God in receiving the Sacrament concealing this”; but now he was able to free his mind, “saying that they could hurt no man now my lord Darcy was dead.”^[1224]

On Friday 6 July 1537 Sir Robert Constable was brought out to the Beverley Gate for execution. The government chaplain could not bring him to confess that he had committed treason since the pardon, “howbeit his open confession was right good.” The passivity with which prisoners submitted to death in Tudor times is somewhat repugnant to modern ideas. When a man knows that his cause has been overthrown by treachery and his life forfeited by the most cruel 221injustice, we feel that he ought to make some protest at his death, that his warfare on behalf of right and justice, as he conceives it, ought to be carried on up to the very last breath. Any submission appears like a compromise with evil. In Henry VIII’s reign public opinion was very different. In the first place, as we have seen, the officials who conducted the execution took summary measures to prevent the prisoner from saying anything in his own justification. In the second place an execution was a public amusement, and the people did not want to be made uncomfortable by it. They guarded against mental uneasiness in a very simple manner. If the prisoner submitted to his sentence and acknowledged that he had received a fair trial, they applauded him. There was no need to trouble about a man who was quite satisfied with his own fate. If, on the other hand, he did by any chance protest, they said that he must be a bad man because he died “uncharitably”; therefore he must have deserved his fate, and again there was no need to pity him. The prisoner had usually no power to resist the weight of public opinion, broken as he was in body by most rigorous imprisonment, and in spirit by his long conflict with the most paralysing human vices, injustice, cruelty and selfishness. He was worn out—

“Let the long contention cease,

Geese are swans and swans are geese.

Let them have it as they will,