Chapter XXI · THE COUNCIL OF THE NORTH

There is documentary evidence that 185 persons were executed in the north for their share in the risings between October 1536 and March 1537, and that 31 were executed in the south, making a total of 216. In addition to this there is reason to believe that some executions took place of which no record remains, and there were a certain number of prisoners who died in prison without trial. The slaughter at the assault on Carlisle was considerable, but there is no means of discovering how many fell there, as the only number mentioned, 700, seems to be much too great. Making allowance for these omissions, however, the death-roll, although much longer than historians have acknowledged, is short considering the standard of the period. It is said that 100,000 peasants were slaughtered in Germany after the revolt of 1525. In comparison with this Henry’s modest total of little over 200 looks like humanity itself. If he won the victory by treachery, he is entitled to the praise of having used it with moderation, although this mercy was forced upon him by circumstances and was not much to his taste.

It may be doubted whether this punishment would have been sufficient to overpower the opposition to Henry’s policy, if the King had not found an effective ally in the plague. The fatal disease which had raged in the south during 1536 spread northward in the summer of 1537, and continued its ravages in the northern counties during the next four or five years. Men had no time to trouble about the wrongs of the Church with that terrible spectre at the door. According to the King’s servants it was the direct work of God on behalf of the King. At any rate it had a great deal to do with the peaceful close of Henry’s reign.

The north of England at the beginning of the sixteenth century was the poorest and most backward part of the kingdom, the part, therefore, which required most attention and care at the hands of 227a competent ruler. So far Henry had not done well by it. He found the north poor, and he robbed it of the only treasure it possessed in the wealth of the abbeys. He found it backward, and he nearly destroyed the only civilising influence at work there, the Church. He found that the people cherished, among many faults, a few rude virtues, truthfulness, personal honour, fidelity to family and friends. He made no serious effort to reform their faults, but he did his best to eradicate their virtues. By his system of justice oaths were made so common that it was impossible they should be respected. Treacherous and false witnesses were encouraged. The brother was forced to condemn the brother, and the wife was tempted to betray her husband. It was impossible that the gentlemen should preserve the same standard and feel the same self-respect after they had been half bribed, half frightened into taking part in the arrest and condemnation of their kinsmen and friends. In short, the north was impoverished and degraded by Norfolk and the King.

Nevertheless Henry VIII was a statesman, and he had long intended to reform the north. His experimental councils are one sign of this. His intrigues against the Percys are another. The Pilgrimage of Grace afforded a very suitable opportunity to put his ideas into practice. By its means he at last laid hands on the whole of the Percy inheritance, and destroyed a power which had menaced the throne for two hundred years. This dangerous power had been delegated to the Earls of Northumberland in the hope that it would enable them to control the Borders, but time had proved the folly of the measure. The Percys could plunge the kingdom in turmoil whenever they chose, but they could not maintain any appreciable amount of good government on the Borders. At length Henry VIII destroyed the family by violence and treachery. The means were bad, but the end was worth attaining, and the King was firmly determined that no act of his should confer similar power on another great family, which his son or grandson would in turn be obliged to destroy.

Henry had determined to try a new plan of government on the Borders. No satisfactory way to hold the mosstroopers in check had ever been devised. The councils were in a perpetual state of reorganisation. The wardens of the Marches were often in trouble for treason and at other times pursued spirited blood-feuds among themselves or with the Scots wardens. It was no wonder that the King took the wardenships into his own hands and secretly resolved that no nobleman should hold them again.

The East Marches were offered to the Earl of Westmorland, but 228he was allowed to refuse the office^[1245], which would not have been the case if the King had really wanted him. Henry intended that the work should be done by knights and gentlemen appointed as his deputies and dependent on his own orders. They were to be assisted by the Council of the Marches. This body, which had been in existence for a long time, was composed of all the principal Border gentlemen, and the King decided to grant them pensions in consideration of the services which he hoped they would perform. The powers of the council were confined to the Borders; its members were officials such as Sir Thomas Clifford the captain of Berwick, Lionel Grey porter of Berwick, and Northumbrian gentlemen such as the Forsters, the Ogles, the Carrs and the Fenwicks. It was now proposed to include the headmen of the principal surnames of Tynedale and Reedsdale, the Charltons, Robsons, Dods, Halls and others. The presidents of the council were the deputy wardens, and its business was confined to Scots and English raids, outrages in Tynedale and Reedsdale, the safe-keeping of Border castles, and dealings with the English spies who infested the Lowlands of Scotland.

This council must not be confused with the Council of the North, as it was a totally distinct body. It was a makeshift means of dealing with the problem of the Borders. While England and Scotland were hostile, it was impossible to rule these districts justly and firmly. The reivers were not to blame for their situation. There is no real moral distinction between deliberately laying waste a fair country in time of war, and carrying off a neighbour’s cattle under cover of night, except that the first is wanton destruction and the second is sometimes a work of necessity. The mosstrooper naturally lost all respect for the law which praised and rewarded the first and hanged him for the second. The King did his best to deal fairly by the Borders. It was not his fault that all plans failed; or at least it was his fault only in so far as he stirred up tumult and encouraged the terrible Warden raids which so often set the Scots fields ablaze just before harvest time. He had let a lawless genie out of the pot, which he could by no means conjure back again.

In January 1536–7 the Earl of Northumberland was dying. He made no difficulty about the surrender of the wardenships of the East and Middle Marches into the King’s hands. The younger Percys were soon to be disposed of in the most definite way possible. There remained the West Marches, of which the Earl of Cumberland was the warden. On 24 January the King commanded the Earl 229to reconcile himself with Lord Dacre. Shortly afterwards the Privy Council desired the Earl to resign his office as warden, and announced at the same time that it was the King’s pleasure to advance him to the Order of the Garter^[1246].

The King decided to appoint Sir William Evers to the East and Sir John Widdrington to the Middle Marches as his deputies, with Roger Fenwick as Keeper of Tynedale and George Fenwick Keeper of Reedsdale^[1247].

It might have been expected that the King would consult the Duke of Norfolk before making these appointments, as he was just about to start for the north. But perhaps he wished to show Norfolk that he was not entirely trusted. At any rate Sir Anthony Browne set out secretly with the commissions for the new deputy wardens several days before Norfolk, and the Duke was much surprised to find himself following in the steps of a royal messenger about whom he knew nothing^[1248]. Norfolk’s authority was limited also in another way. From the first it had been determined that he should be accompanied by a council of “personages of honour, worship and learning,” appointed by the Privy Council^[1249]. Their commission set forth the powers of the council “whose advice the Duke shall in all things use, and for whose entertainment he shall have allowance, as in a book, wherein the Duke and every councillor is rated at a certain ordinary, is contained.” Some of these councillors accompanied the Duke to the north, the rest were gentlemen already resident there^[1250]. On 14 January “the Earl of Westmorland and Bowes were sworn of the King’s Council in the North.”^[1251] Sir Marmaduke Constable was vice-president, and William Babthorpe was a councillor^[1252].

The Council of the North was thus constituted in 1537, but as yet it had no independent authority. The members did not even sign Norfolk’s despatches, and the Duke quoted their advice only when he was suggesting measures which would be disagreeable to the King^[1253].

When Norfolk was at Doncaster on 2 February he received from the Privy Council an explanation of Browne’s errand. Besides the appointment of the new deputies^[1254], he carried letters patent to all the headmen of Tynedale and Reedsdale granting them fees as the King’s 230servants^[1255]. At first Norfolk was not opposed to the general outlines of the plan, but he strongly objected to some of the King’s pensioners. Edward and Cuthbert Charleton, Henry and Geoffrey Robson, Christopher and David Milburn, John Hall of Otterburn, and Sandy and Anthony Hall were all either thieves themselves or maintainers of thieves^[1256]. They had been involved in the murder of two gentlemen. “Light persons will say that the King is obliged to hire the worst malefactors and overlook their offences.” Norfolk ventured to send after Sir Anthony Browne the advice that he should not deliver the patents to these men without further orders^[1257].

The Duke was snubbed by the Privy Council for his pains. “The King marvelled he should be more earnest against retaining such as have been murderers and thieves than such as have been traitors. These men rather did good in the late trouble, though they did it for their own lucre, and if they can be now made good men the King’s money will be well spent.” To grant them fees was not the same thing as to grant them pardons; if they were murderers they could still be punished for that. Norfolk must write at once to Sir Anthony and tell him to carry out his original orders without modification^[1258]. Henry always believed that the mosstroopers might be turned to good use if he could but manage them. On the approach of war with Scotland they became a valuable asset.

Sir Anthony Browne arrived at Berwick on Saturday 3 February. Besides the delivery of their commissions to the deputy-wardens, he was instructed to arrange a general pacification, to demand restitution from Tynedale and Reedsdale for the raids they had made in Northumberland during the rising, to appoint certain persons to advise the deputies, and to put Ford Castle into safe-keeping. In addition to these tasks, some of them not easy, he had still more delicate work to do. He must warn the Borderers against all breaches of the peace with Scotland; he must inform Sir Thomas Clifford that the Earl of Cumberland had been reconciled to Lord Dacre, and he must order Sir Thomas to “cast away his ancient grudges”; he must persuade the Northumbrian gentlemen “to live more in the heart of the Marches than they do now”; finally he was not to leave the north until the two younger Percys were safely in London by dint of force or strategy, and with them their henchman little John Heron of Chipchase^[1259].

231Sir Anthony Browne sent for the gentlemen of Northumberland to meet him at Berwick on Tuesday 6 February. There were some who failed to answer his summons—Cuthbert and Edward Charleton, Henry Robson, Christopher and David Milburn, and Sandy Hall—all names on Norfolk’s black list. The Bishop of Durham, who was making himself very useful, explained that they were noted freebooters who would not come in “for fear of their evil deeds;”^[1260] the deputy wardens confirmed this opinion^[1261]. The absentees would have received a pleasant surprise if they had plucked up heart to come; against all likelihood it was gold, not halters, that the King had sent them.

All the gentlemen who assembled at Berwick took the new oath to the King and received their patents. They took “not a little comfort” in being the King’s servants, and would “think long” until they had earned their pensions by some deed. The Greys were at feud with the Carrs, the Forsters and Ogles with the Halls; indeed it is safe to say that there was not a family in Northumberland without a blood enemy and a sworn ally. Sir Anthony Browne commanded them in the King’s name to forget their hatreds, and in the fullness of their new-found loyalty they all replied that the King should be obeyed in everything, “and each agreed to set his hand to an instrument.”

They were heartily agreed on one point. Tynedale and Reedsdale had spoiled the plains “so sore that many are weary of their lives”; the reivers must be forced to make restitution, or if that was impossible at least some revenge must be taken. Sir Anthony Browne promised redress and sent to the hill graynes to demand pledges for their good behaviour^[1262]. Reedsdale made no difficulty, but sent in seven or eight of these hostages at once. There was likely to be more trouble over the Tynedale pledges, and the dalesmen had an excuse for their lawlessness ready. They said that they would never have “broken” if Sir Reynold Carnaby had not called upon them in the King’s name to rise against the rebels of Northumberland. Of course everyone in Northumberland swore that he had no thoughts against the King and took up arms only to protect his goods from the reivers^[1263]. It is difficult to discover who was responsible for the raising of the two dales, the Percy or the Carnaby faction. The 232Carnabys laid the mustering of Tynedale to the charge of little John Heron, Sir Thomas Percy’s man, and supported their story by many circumstantial details^[1264]. This still leaves Reedsdale unaccounted for, and the mosstroopers themselves said that they rose for Sir Reynold. In the King’s opinion, though they acted for their own gain, they did more good than harm. He must have meant by spoiling their neighbours, for they did nothing else. It may have been that when John Heron raised Tynedale, the Carnabys raised Reedsdale against him, and that both dales thought it more profitable to spoil the lowlands than to fight each other. It was in nobody’s interest to defend the falling house of Percy, and it may be suspected that a list of spoils nearly as long as those attributed to the Percys might have been made against the Carnaby faction.

The members of the Council of the Marches assembled at Berwick. They were Sir Thomas Clifford, Sir William Evers, Sir John Widdrington, Robert Collingwood, Lionel Grey, Cuthbert Radcliff and John Horsley. On 14 February they wrote to the King to inform him that it had been necessary to modify some of the orders brought by Sir Anthony Browne. First they had requested him not to deliver the King’s letters patent which granted the keeping of Reedsdale to George Fenwick, because a change at such an unsettled time would be sure to cause disorder, and the deputy warden of the Middle Marches, Sir John Widdrington, felt himself hampered in his duties if Reedsdale were not under his direct control.

Further, after much debate, they had determined to advise the King humbly against enlisting as pensioners in his service Cuthbert and Edward Charleton. These two men were leaders of the Tynedale thieves. They had resorted to Sir Thomas Percy during the insurrection. They had busily devoted themselves to stirring up the disorder so favourable to the practice of their calling. The feeling was general that in asking these reivers to assist their natural enemies the wardens, the King was obeying too implicitly the old saw about catching thieves. Moreover, the Charletons had not been loyal since the end of the rising. The greater number of the dalesmen had been ready to take the King’s oath, but the Charletons had refused to swear to be true to the King, unless they might make a special reservation in favour of Hexham Priory, which they had sworn to maintain against all the world, receiving 20 nobles a year from the canons in guerdon of their allegiance. This is some proof 233that the marchman’s respect for his oath was more than a chivalrous fiction of the Border minstrels.

The Charletons would not agree to send in pledges for restitution of the cattle and gear they had plundered. They had plenty of friends on the Marches, and being in league with the reivers of Liddesdale, Jedworth Forest, Harlaw Woods and Esk Water, they could defy the King’s officers with impunity. The Council of the Marches suggested that it would be better to catch and hang them than to enrich them with the nation’s gold. They were so formidable that it would take a force of 300 men to penetrate Tynedale and run them to earth.

Finally the King had commanded that John Heron of Chipchase should be arrested and sent up to London by water; but the Council of the Marches thought that his arrest would alarm the Reedsdale men, who were so far fairly quiet, and found it expedient merely to bind him over for 200 marks to appear before the King when summoned^[1265].

Some of these arrangements did not please Henry. From a fragment of a despatch to the Council of the Marches, it appears that he marvelled at the demand for 300 soldiers, considering that Northumberland was quiet; he expected the Council to arrest and send up the Charletons without any such aid. He saw no reason against employing the Charletons in Norfolk’s objection that they were murderers, but it was a very different matter if they had refused to take his oath. The draft breaks off, and it is impossible to say what further orders were in the completed letter^[1266].

On Monday 26 February the Duke of Norfolk dissolved Hexham Priory. All passed quietly. Edward and Cuthbert Charleton were safe in the fastnesses of North Tynedale, and did not consider that their oath bound them to attack the King’s Lieutenant when he had superior forces^[1267].

On Tuesday 27 February Sir Anthony Browne received the last of the Reedsdale pledges, and the Tynedale men agreed to send in theirs on Monday 5 March. Well pleased at seeing the end of this difficult task, Sir Anthony left Berwick for Newcastle-upon-Tyne^[1268]. At Morpeth he was met by 300 of the King’s subjects who had been “sore harried and spoiled” and begged for redress against the mosstroopers. Browne replied to their petition that he had taken order 234for the restitution of their lost goods, “whereat they are right joyous and glad.” Browne wrote that all went well, and that he expected to be at court again in a fortnight^[1269]. If he had had more experience of the Borders, this very look of peace would have made him uneasy.

On Saturday 3 March Sir Anthony Browne was complacently sure that no part of the realm was in better stay than the Middle Marches. That very day Roger Fenwick, the Keeper of Tynedale, went to Bellingham to receive the pledges of his dale. At midnight he was set upon and murdered “for old grudges, by three naughty persons”; the murderers were John of Charleton, Rynny Charleton and John Dod^[1270].

Norfolk was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne at the time. Feeling his position strengthened by the early failure of the King’s new policy, he drew up, with the assistance of his council, an alternative scheme for the government of the north. Henry was determined to be served no more on the Marches by noblemen, who were as lawless as the reivers and might use their isolation to become too powerful. Norfolk, on the other hand, was convinced that only a nobleman, wielding such powers as any king might fear to entrust to a subject, could keep order on the Marches^[1271]. According to Norfolk’s scheme, this nobleman ought to be a member of the King’s Privy Council. He should be the King’s Lieutenant, president of the proposed Council of the North, and the ultimate authority in Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire. He was to have power to levy forces whenever he saw need. He must be chief warden of all the Marches, with deputies under him. He was to spend most of the year in the north and to sit two or three times at Newcastle-upon-Tyne to administer justice in Northumberland, in such cases as murders, felonies and debts, as the wardens had no authority to judge between Englishman and Englishman except in cases of March treason^[1272], but only between Englishman and Scot.

In this proposal Norfolk showed his hand. During the following months there was a continuous subterranean struggle between the opposite schemes of Henry and Norfolk for the government of the north. Although little is to be found as yet about the Council of the North, there can be no doubt that that was the form of government which Henry had in his mind from the first. Against it Norfolk set up his scheme of a northern dictator, with himself holding the dictatorship. It was a tempting but a dangerous dream, 235and Norfolk dared not allow it to appear except by hints and glimpses such as this.

To strengthen the hands of the dictator of the north the Duke and his council made a number of suggestions less open to criticism than the main proposal:

(1) Reedsdale belonged to Lord Tailboys, but it “is wholly inhabited by thieves and has always been used as a lord marcher’s liberty and is not geldable.” Harbottle Castle, where the Keeper of Reedsdale ought to dwell, was so ruinous that it was fit neither for a dwelling-place nor a prison. The King ought either to compel Tailboys to repair Harbottle, or take the whole valley into his own hands, giving Tailboys compensation.

(2) Some fortress ought to be built in Tynedale, or else Simonburn Castle, belonging to Heron of Ford, must be put into repair and made over to the Keeper of Tynedale.

(3) “Some true and hardy gentleman” was needed as Keeper of Tynedale, which was to include Hexhamshire, Corbridge and the Barony of Langley. All the gentlemen of the South Tyne valley should be ordered to rise at his word in case of raiding or Scots invasions.

(4) The Earl of Northumberland’s castles and lands should be taken into the King’s hands, and the tenants instead of paying ingressum and such charges should be commanded to be ready with horse and harness at short notice.

(5) Lord Dacre must be ordered to keep his tenants, the prickers of Gillsland, in good rule, and they must be ready to attend the King’s officers at the Border meetings.

(6) The pensions granted to the gentlemen and headmen of Northumberland, designed to encourage them in the King’s service, were not likely to have that effect. The money would be better spent in rewarding good service already done, or in making the castles defensible.

(7) Finally the laws of the Marches ought to be fixed and written down, as at present they worked with all the uncertainty of traditional custom.

These suggestions, headed “A remembrance for order and good rule to be had and kept in the north parts,” were sent up to London^[1273]. In his letter to the Privy Council dated 7 March Norfolk again urged that a nobleman should be appointed warden, at least of 236the West Marches. “Every man of wit” about him was agreed that no “mean person” could curb the Marches. This was the moral he drew from the murder of Roger Fenwick^[1274].

The Privy Council answered this letter on 12 March. They pointed out that the King had offered the wardenship of the East and Middle Marches to two noblemen, who had both been reluctant to accept the office; instead of reluctant servants he had taken the best men who would serve him willingly. Norfolk had expressed approval of the scheme at first, only objecting to a few of the pensioners, whose unfitness the Privy Council now acknowledged. The King had been badly served on the West Marches because of the Clifford feud; it would become still more bitter if he appointed Lord Dacre to an office which the Earl of Cumberland had just given up. Was not the King’s authority enough to make the meanest man respected? “The King retaining all the gentlemen and headmen as he doth shall not be ill served; at least it shall not be ill to assay it.” They asked for the names of the “wise men” who had advised with Norfolk^[1275].

The Privy Council remained blandly unconscious of Norfolk’s very broad hint that there was one nobleman who would not refuse to be warden of all the Marches. Their reply also shows why Norfolk resented so much the pensions which the King had granted. The recipients received the money direct from the King; a special messenger had brought them their patents, and it was made very plain that the Duke had nothing to do with the gift. This struck a blow at Norfolk’s power of buying adherents by a promise of court patronage, and when all the gentlemen and headmen were the King’s servants, it became much more difficult for anyone else to gather a strong band of retainers and allies.

When Norfolk’s proposal was laid before the King, he replied in no uncertain terms. On 17 March the Privy Council report to Norfolk the following speech which the King himself had deigned to make. Henry marvelled that Norfolk seemed so resolved that only noblemen should serve him on the Marches:

“When I would,” quoth his Highness, “have preferred to the wardenry of the East and Middle Marches my lord of Westmorland, like as he did utterly refuse it, so my lord of Norfolk noted him a man of such heat and hastiness of nature that he could not think 237him meet for it. When we would,” quoth his Grace, “have conferred it to my lord of Rutland, he refused it also; and my lord of Norfolk noted him a man of too much pusillanimity to have done us good service in it, if he would have embraced an overture in it. And we think,” quoth his Highness, “he would not advise us to continue in it my lord of Northumberland. Now if we shall prefer none of these three to that room, we would be glad,” quoth his Grace, “that my lord of Norfolk shall name a nobleman that he thinketh meet for that office. For gladly we would have such a one in store to appoint it unto, if we should hereafter alter our device, which we be not yet determined to do, nor shall apply to that sentence, till we have better experiment what should enforce us unto.”^[1276]

Norfolk could not, of course, name the “nobleman that he thinketh meet for that office.” He had indicated the identity of that desirable personage as plainly as possible. The King’s snub revealed to him his mistake, and he remained silent for a considerable time, deep in his multifarious duties in the north^[1277].

On 11 March Norfolk was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, making the final arrangements, as he thought, for bringing in the Border pledges^[1278]. Sir Anthony Browne, who was about to ride south, thought that there would be little more trouble with Tynedale as certain men “of good estimation” had undertaken to send pledges for all the inhabitants except the murderers^[1279]. Norfolk intended to return in Easter week to see that his orders had been executed and to “hear many poor men’s causes.”^[1280]

All that is known of the terms of Norfolk’s treaty with the men of Tynedale may be gathered from the following letter, apparently addressed to the Council of the Marches by the heads of the four graynes^[1281]:

“Worshipful master, this is our answers being the heads men of Tynedale, it is so that we were called before the Duke of Norfolk’s grace for such misorder as we have done in the late rebellion within our sovereign lord’s realm, and there was commanded to make restitution of the third part of all such goods as we had by our oaths, and to find our felons given forth by the commissioners, and that [what] we have not done we shall do. Also the said commissioners hath given forth another decree, the which we may not bide marvelling what is the cause thereof. This bill made the xvii day of March. Also all conditions made before the Duke of Norfolk we will fulfil and do to the uttermost. Also if they be any 238that be obstacle to do the same, we bind us by this our writing to had [hold] him and forcify him. By us—

Thomas Charlton

Gylbert Charlton

Gerret Charlton of Wark

Gerre Charlton of the Boure.

Umfray Mylborn

Rynyone Charlton

Henry Yarro

John Wilkinson

John Robson of the Pawston

Jaffray Robson

Arche Robson.

Henry Dode

Arche Dode”^[1282]

There was no trouble, at present, between England and Scotland. The deputy wardens, who had nothing to do with internal justice, could send in satisfactory reports. The East Marches were quiet. On the Middle Marches Sir John Widdrington and the Scots officers arranged for redress between Liddesdale, Tynedale and Reedsdale according to the agreement made at the last Border meeting. The King of Scots had sent special orders that this should be observed on his side. Nevertheless there was a general feeling that war would follow on James’ return from France^[1283].

At Easter Norfolk returned to Northumberland, as he had intended. He made a tour of inspection round the Border castles and held a meeting with the Scots warden of the Middle Marches. Norfolk was convinced by his demeanour that there was no immediate intention of war^[1284].

The Duke was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 5 April, where he was met by Sir John Widdrington, Sir William Evers, the Council of the Marches and most of the gentlemen. He was much displeased with the state of affairs. Tynedale and Reedsdale had made no restitution, and were not likely to do so unless they could be constrained by more effectual means than keeping their kinsmen in prison^[1285]. Neither dale would begin to make restitution before the other. In spite of their thievings the borderers were miserably poor, and in some cases they were in fact unable to restore even a part of what they had stolen, for the cattle often went to supply a pressing lack of meat.

Some of the Reedsdale men had just raided Tynedale and harried one of the Milburns. This was no doubt a surprise expedition, for Tynedale could muster more spears than Reedsdale. The inhabitants of the two valleys might fairly be said to eke out a precarious existence by driving away each other’s cattle. A servant of the Carnabys had been attacked. The mosstroopers scorned the garrison left 239to protect him and burned his house to the ground. Sir John Widdrington had nowhere to bestow the nine Reedsdale pledges except in the decayed tower of Harbottle where “they cannot be kept strong, ne yet hath any victual for them.”

Sir William Evers had held two meetings with the Scots on the East Marches, but no meeting had been held by the deputies of either the Middle or the West Marches. If nothing more than this were done, Norfolk thought the disorders would increase. He reported the unsatisfactory state of affairs to the King on 7 April^[1286]. He did not mention his earlier scheme in the letter, but he sent a verbal message that only a nobleman, armed with sufficient powers, could hope to keep order; as for the name of anyone fit for the post, “the King knows his nobles.”^[1287]

Perhaps Norfolk was a little afraid of the effect which his sullen message might produce, for on 12 April he wrote a hedging letter to Cromwell. He thought that the Earl of Rutland would be the best warden of the East and Middle Marches. Rutland was allied to all the gentlemen of Northumberland, and also to the Earl of Westmorland. He was a man who would listen to counsel, and as war was threatened “it is perilous for a hasty, heady man to have the rule of such people, for the Scots can train men to ambushments as well as any man living.” This remark was aimed at Westmorland; but nevertheless the Duke considered him the best man for the wardenship, failing Rutland.

Norfolk had inquired of both my lord and my lady of Westmorland why the Earl had refused the office, and found that it was for the following reasons,—that the Earl’s servants had refused to serve the King during the Pilgrimage, and he was busy dismissing them by degrees; the Earl was not assured of the friendship of Robert Bowes, whose influence was so great among Westmorland’s kinsmen and allies that he feared it would outweigh his own; during the rebellion the Earl had defended Sir Reynold Carnaby, and thereby attracted to himself some of the hatred felt on all hands for Northumberland’s favourite. Norfolk thought that these reasons were good. As to Bowes he “is not only very much esteemed but is a wise, hardy man and dare well enterprise a great matter.” The King could not do better than attach him to his service by a valuable grant. “Though I dare not speak assuredly of a man so lately reconciled, yet if he may be assured he may be very useful.”

On the West Marches Norfolk put no faith in Sir Thomas 240Wharton, who was suggested for the post of deputy warden. No one could do such good service as Lord Dacre, but as he had been heavily fined so lately it would not look well to restore his office; people would say that the King was simply making everything he could out of him. The Earl of Cumberland was the only suitable person left; “but he must be brought to change his conditions and not be so greedy to get money of his tenants.” Norfolk declared that this was his final opinion, and begged the King to keep it secret^[1288]. Needless to say, the King did not change his plans, nor was he deceived as to Norfolk’s real ambition.

About this time, the middle of April 1537, the rumours of an approaching war with Scotland became alarming. In order to understand their origin, it is necessary to trace the relations of England, France and Scotland during the last five months.

James V, King of Scotland, was at Tournelles near Paris in December 1536, preparing for his wedding with Francis I’s daughter Madeleine^[1289]. The French were pleased with his gentleness and Faenza, the Papal Nuncio, with his devotion to the Holy See^[1290]. To the English ambassadors he was cold and distant, and Wallop described him, not without malice, as a countrified youth. “His manner of using himself by that we do perceive is after the northern fashion, as the lords of those parts doth use themselves when they come first to court, now looking over one shoulder, now over the other, with a beck to one and a beck to another, and unto us nothing. He is a right proper man after the northern fashion. His being here shall do him much good, and to us little profit; for here he shall learn many things.”^[1291] It seems to have been the fashion at the English court to talk of the Scots as if they were barbarians, but James probably had his own reasons for seeming shy to the English ambassadors.

He spent much of his time practising for the jousts which were to be held at his wedding^[1292]. Francis showed him every courtesy and when he entered Paris in state on 31 December 1536 the Court of Parliament went before him clad in red cloaks, an honour not usually accorded to any but the King of France^[1293]. The marriage took place on New Year’s Day, with great magnificence, and a proper display of sumptuous apparel, cloth of gold, and precious stones. After the wedding was a banquet, and after the banquet a mask and dancing. Next day there was jousting at Tournelles. The King of Scots was a true sportsman, and appeared 241at his wedding with a wound caused by “a great stroke with a spear upon the left side of his head ... being a sore blemish in his face all this triumphing time.”^[1294]

On 19 January 1536–7 Faenza wrote that there was good hope of English affairs going well. The people stood firmly to their demands. The King had received ambassadors from them graciously, which showed that he must be aware of his own weakness. No doubt some report of Aske’s reception at court had reached France. The Nuncio suggested that Pole should be sent to England and that the Censures should be published at once^[1295], but as soon as he received definite orders to publish them he hung back^[1296]. This made little difference, however, as the time when they would have been useful had passed.

James V desired to return home through England, but he felt some difficulty about requesting Henry’s hospitality. The King of England had always opposed the French marriage, and James, to avoid his remonstrances, had not consulted him on the subject. Henry professed himself grieved and offended by this neglect^[1297]. Nevertheless James did not wish to take the long voyage home with his young bride in the stormy season of the year, and as he was anxious to return to Scotland, he ventured to make his request through the French ambassador in England.

Henry was by no means inclined to do his nephew a favour. He considered it very strange that the King of Scots should not make the request in his own name. On 4 February the Privy Council asked Norfolk’s advice on the subject^[1298]. The Duke’s position was a delicate one. James was possibly the future King of England. His friendship would in any case be very valuable to the dictator of the north. In spite of Henry’s obvious wishes Norfolk ventured to consult his own future interests, and replied that it would do no harm for James to pass through England, except on the score of expense. It was probably Scots pride which prevented him from writing to the King himself, and the peace and riches of England could cause nothing but wholesome humiliation to one with “a very enemy’s heart in his body.”^[1299] But Henry determined to show his nephew no courtesy. “The King’s honour is not to receive the King of Scots into his realm unless he will come as his Grace’s vassal. For there came never King of Scots into England in peaceable 242manner but after that sort.” Henry enumerated all his grievances against James, and concluded with the argument that the country must appear peaceful and loyal to an enemy who was passing through it, and to secure this appearance it might be necessary to make concessions to the disaffected which would afterwards cause trouble. James’ overtures met with no response, and he was obliged to face the sea voyage^[1300].

This affair did not improve the relations between the two countries. James became more gracious than ever to the Papal Nuncio at Paris. He was ready to further the Pope’s plan of reconciling Francis and Charles, and he cherished the splendid dream of all young kings, that he would go in person to fight against the infidels. The Scots disliked Henry’s policy and his person. They saw that his growing despotism was a menace to Scotland. David Beaton, the Abbot of Arbroath and Keeper of the Privy Seal, was willing, if the Pope desired it, to send the Censures secretly into England and cause them to be published suddenly when Henry VIII was in the north^[1301]. It is impossible to say what the effect of this bold scheme would have been, but the Papal court had not sufficient energy to take it up, and Henry did not travel north after all at this time.

The Pope sent James V a consecrated cap and sword, as a special token of his favour, together with an exhortation against heresy^[1302]. The King of Scots was pleased and stirred by the symbol. “With as many words as he can say in French, [he] again thanks his Holiness for the sword. I know it has touched his heart and tomorrow morning the ceremony [of presentation] shall be,” wrote the Papal Nuncio on 18 February^[1303].

On 8 March the King and Queen of Scots took leave of Francis at Compiègne and went to Rouen, whence they were to sail^[1304]. They waited there for nearly two months before they embarked. The young Queen was consumptive and could not well bear the voyage, which was therefore delayed until a more favourable time of year. James distrusted Henry’s intentions. The English ships held command of the sea and before now a King of Scotland had been captured on his voyage and carried prisoner to London. Rumour said that there were ten armed English ships on the coast and ten more in Flanders, and though James had fourteen ships of his own and eight 243lent for the voyage by Francis, he feared that Henry might begin hostilities by an attack on his fleet.

Henry, however, was not on such good terms with the Emperor as Francis imagined, and was not disposed for war. Though relations were strained between France and England, neither was prepared to fight^[1305]. The war with the Emperor kept Francis busy, and Henry needed time to recover after the late crisis in England. James had no intention of attacking England without his father-in-law’s support. Nevertheless the news that he was bringing home his French bride raised a general expectation of war with Scotland.

At a friend’s house in West Malling, Kent, James Fredewell a priest, was playing at tables with Adam Lewes, the schoolmaster, one day in April 1537. The priest asked a man who was going to London to buy him a book. Lewes asked if he would buy the New Testament, but Fredewell replied he wished all the Testaments in English were burnt.

“What! will ye burn the Gospel of Christ and the word of God?” said the schoolmaster.

“Tush!” quoth the priest, “I will buy me a portresse to say my service on, as I was wont to do.”

They finished their game and went to John Doomright’s shop, where a pile of Acts of Parliament lay, concerning artillery, dress and unlawful games. Lewes remarked that he hoped they would be better enforced when the King had finished with the work in hand.

“Yea,” said Fredewell, “the King is like to have more to do yet.”

“Why so?” said the shop-keeper, “his Grace hath overcome his enemies of the north, for they hang at their own doors.”

“What then?” returned the priest, “there is another bird abreeding that came not forth yet which will come forth before midsummer, that the King had never such since he was King of England.”

Being asked what he meant, he told them that the Emperor had given the King Flanders, but if Henry took the Emperor’s part, both the King of France and the King of Scots would be on his neck, and Francis had made James Admiral of the sea. The schoolmaster declared that they could do little hurt; but if the King made war beyond the sea he would do well to cut off the priests’ heads first or they would betray him. Fredewell retorted that that was easier said than done. Lewes went away and another priest called Cuthbert came into the shop. He picked up an English Testament and said he was an evil man who translated it, or the Emperor would not have 244burnt him. The shop-keeper asked if no good men were ever put to death by the Bishop of Rome. “Yes,” said Fredewell, “there were some put to death within this two year that was as good livers and as faithful as be now alive.” Cuthbert said that the Bishop of Rome never put good men to death, and the two priests left the shop discussing whether it were lawful for priests to marry^[1306]. Fredewell probably meant the Pilgrims when he spoke of the faithful who were put to death.

At Whitsuntide a citizen of Leicester, who had been making a circuit of pilgrimages in the north of England and Scotland, reported the rumours which he had heard by the way. In Edinburgh it was said that King James would make war on England for “the Seven Sheriffdoms” unless the King of England would give them to him freely, and that James had proclaimed himself Duke of York and Prince of Wales. There were said to be 15,000 Englishmen in Scotland, fugitives who had fled from Norfolk. Two of them were pointed out to the pilgrim in Edinburgh; one was a gentleman wearing a black velvet coat, and yet it was said that he had been but a poor man in England. The other, a priest, was now a canon in a house of religion near Holyrood. These Englishmen had promised to be in the van of an invasion of England, and to raise all Northumberland^[1307].

Scots rhymes, prophecies and ballads aimed against Henry spread into England from time to time. An instance of this came to light at Royston, Hertford. The story is painful and rather perplexing. Robert Dalyvell of Royston went to Scotland “to learn the cunning in the craft of a saddler” about April 1535. He lived in Edinburgh with a saddler for about eight weeks and heard many Scots, both light persons and men of reputation, say that their king should be crowned King of England in London before midsummer three years later, i.e. 1538. They had read this in books of prophecy. Dalyvell returned to England and wandered about the north, working for a few weeks at York, Gateshead and Chester-le-Street; at the last place he heard several Scots say that their king was worthy to be king of England, and next in blood. He told them they were false traitors and their master rebuked them. Dalyvell went back to Edinburgh and “the Scots that railed before read the prophecies of Merlin in his hearing.” He returned home to Royston in 1537 and “on Tuesday night after Palm Sunday at midnight, his wife being asleep” an angel appeared to him, saying, “Arise, and show your 245prince that the Scots would never be true to him.” The next night he had the same vision, but he did not obey it.

On 11 June 1537 Dalyvell told a serving-man in the stable of the Greyhound, Royston, some of the prophecies which he had heard from the Scots, that if the King did not amend he should not live a month after the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist 1538, and that before that day a horse worth 10s. “shall be able to bear all the noble blood of England.”^[1308] Whether the serving-man reported the matter, or whether Dalyvell himself confessed in a panic does not appear, but he was examined by seven magistrates and admitted the words^[1309]. He was sent to London and made a fuller statement next day. It is difficult to see why so much importance was attached to the story of a poor man who seems to have been half-witted. Perhaps Cromwell hoped to get hold of some Scots spies by his means; and he endeavoured to make Dalyvell accuse priests. Though he was racked and cross-examined the prisoner had only one story to tell, and declared that of all the religious men he had known not one had spoken of prophecies even in confession^[1310].

That Henry himself was anxious about James’ intentions is shown by the matters treated in the Privy Council on 3 April 1537. It was decided that Calais, Carlisle, and Berwick must be victualled and prepared for defence. The English navy must be in readiness for immediate service. The commission of the peace must be purged of all but “men of worship and wisdom meet for the same”; and letters must be sent to all justices to keep special watch for seditious persons; as a further precaution certain of the nobles would be ordered to live in their own counties for a time.

The Pope was trying to reconcile the Emperor and Francis in order that all three might attack England; the King must contrive to have one friend at least, and as alliances were generally concluded by a marriage, the King’s two daughters, though illegitimate, must have such provision made for them that their hands would be accepted by foreign princes. The Queen was pregnant, but still it was expedient that one of the King’s daughters should be declared legitimate “to take away the remainder hanging upon the King of Scots,” who might be tempted by the French to bring forward his claim^[1311].

Meanwhile the Border was alive with rumours of war. No one had yet been appointed deputy warden of the West Marches, but Sir John Lowther, the Earl of Cumberland’s deputy captain at 246Carlisle, was doing the work. Hearing a rumour on Easter Eve [31 March 1537] that the Scots were mustering, Lowther sent Edward Story the warden-serjeant with a letter to Lord Maxwell the Scots warden, in order that Story might pick up news by the way. Story talked for a long time with Maxwell, who told him that general musters had been proclaimed in every borough town in Scotland. Each man was expected to appear with “a jack of plate, a steel bonnet and splints, and a spear six ells long, and all who can, a horse.” The King of Scots was expected at any time; he was waiting for a fair wind and he hoped “to escape the ships of the sea.” Maxwell declared that if the King had been at home during the rebellion he would “have kept his house in Carlisle before this.”

Lowther forwarded this news to the Earl of Cumberland on 6 April, and reminded him that Maxwell’s boast might well be true, for neither the city nor the castle was strong, and he lacked ordnance, powder and gunners^[1312]. The Earl received the letter at Skipton, and sent on the warning to the King. He thought that a Scots general would attack either Berwick or Carlisle, and he dwelt upon the weakness of the latter^[1313].

In February Henry had sent a request to the Regents of Scotland by Ralph Sadler that rebels flying from the Duke of Norfolk’s justice might be carefully returned to England. He received a flowery answer from the Scots Council, promising all that he asked^[1314]; but though the Scots wardens were charged not to harbour English fugitives^[1315], they were not expected to take their orders seriously, and such of the Pilgrims as escaped across the Border were safe.

On 7 April Norfolk at Newcastle-upon-Tyne wrote to inform the Regents that John Charleton, Rinian Charleton and John Dod, the slayers of Roger Fenwick, were being sheltered at Jedburgh Abbey. He demanded that they should be arrested and delivered to the English wardens^[1316]. Henry Ray, Berwick Pursuivant, a very important personage on the Borders, carried the letter. He was given no credence, but he was instructed to enlarge upon the peace, contentment, prosperity and riches of England to the Regents and all other Scots. On his way he was to find out all he could as to whether the people wished for war, how the new taxes were taken, and why some of the lords had gone with a large company into Fife.

On 9 April Berwick Pursuivant arrived at Edinburgh and dined 247with the Bishop of Aberdeen, who was Treasurer of Scotland. The Bishop made enquiries about the insurrection in England. Ray replied that the realm was never in better order than it was at present. The Treasurer said, “That is very well, but ye have put down many good Christian men.” Ray admitted that they were Christian men, but if they had been good men they would not have been put down,—“I trow, my lord, we are as good Christian men as any in the world.” The Treasurer replied, “Ye that are poor men are good, but the heads are worst; for if ye English men be so good, then is France, Italy and many other countries clearly deceived.” Adam Otterburn, a member of the Scots Council who was dining with them, asked what ships were set on the sea. Ray answered that he knew of none. He gave them the English news according to his instructions. The Treasurer said that he was very glad to hear of so much peace and rejoicing, and that he would pray for the King of England and all the realm, “that ye may be good men.” Ray retorted, “Ye can not, my lord, so soon begin your prayer, but it is had, for we are good already.” He asked why the Scots Borderers were so sure that there would be war when their King came home. The Treasurer merely said that it would not be Scotland’s fault if there were a war.

This humourous hostility, half hidden by a jest, was one sign of the national feeling which watched Henry’s despotism with such jealousy. On his return Ray reported that the commons of Scotland were greatly roused against England, because they believed that English ships had been sent to take their King on his homeward voyage, and that Henry and the Emperor were in league to attack France. If that happened, they said, they would take the French King’s part. They called the English heretics, and were more inclined to war than peace. The new money was paid already, without any rebellion. Lord Maxwell was the only lord who had gone beyond Fife, but for what purpose Ray could not find out. When Ray spoke of the King of England’s power and riches “they say (and in my judgment verily think) they are able to withstand us or any other. And they marvel that my lord of Norfolk lieth in the north parts so long, fearing that his delay and the sailing of the King’s ships means some mischief to them.”^[1317]

Ray brought back a letter, dated at Glasgow 11 April, from the Chancellor of Scotland to Norfolk. The Chancellor acknowledged Norfolk’s letter in the name of the Regents. He could scarcely 248believe that their strict orders against the receipt of fugitives had been disobeyed, but if Norfolk would give them time to make inquiries, anyone found in fault should be sharply punished^[1318]. The pursuivant reached Sheriffhutton Castle, where Norfolk had taken up his residence, on 17 April. The Chancellor’s letter and the report were forwarded to Cromwell. Norfolk sent Ray back to Scotland to pick up some more news^[1319]. It was generally believed that there would be war. For example, Sir Thomas Clifford, the captain of Berwick, was in London. One of his servants wrote from Berwick to tell him that the Mayor and townsmen begged him to show their needs to the King and the Privy Council, as war appeared to be imminent and they were not prepared for a siege^[1320].

The urgent reminders of the Border captains were not unheeded. The King was as anxious as they to secure his frontiers. On 13 April lists were drawn up of the northern fortresses, classified according to whether they required repair or were defensible. Sir George Lawson, the Treasurer of Berwick, received orders to victual the town. On 18 April he wrote to Cromwell to ask for more explicit instructions, and for more money, as he had not nearly so much as Cromwell expected^[1321]. Norfolk gave Cumberland similar orders for the victualling of Carlisle, and the Earl sent a similar plaint to headquarters. The country was almost desolated by the recent risings, and food of all sorts was very difficult to procure. At Carlisle there was the old story of lack of guns and men, which he had repeated times out of number^[1322].

Norfolk had now taken up his quarters at Sheriffhutton Castle, which he left only to hold assizes or suppress a monastery. He had the chief pledges of Tynedale and Reedsdale in his hands, and hoped by their means to be able to extort restitution from their kinsfolk. He was troubled about the matter, for the honest subjects who had been harried demanded a great deal, and the raiders possessed very little^[1323]. The ravages of the Scots did not improve the honest men’s chances of compensation. In April there were several Scots raids on both the East and the West Marches, and Lord Maxwell would not appoint a date for redress. In point of fact both the English and the Scots wardens were convinced that war would break out in a few weeks; and they thought it useless to make appointments that 249would not be kept and to administer law in a district which might any day be plunged into anarchy^[1324].

Lowther’s spies brought him word that James V was expected daily. All the ships on the west coast had gone out to meet him^[1325]. In all Scotland the common bruit was that there would be war when the King came home^[1326]. Great preparations were made for his reception. He was expected on May Day, for at length the wind was in his favour. Lowther wrote to Cumberland that provision could hardly be made for Carlisle in time, “for either now war of Scotland when the King’s purse is full of the French gold, or never.” He cheerfully added that if corn were sent to Carlisle there was no mill in the castle to grind it, and if they obtained good ordnance, there was no one who could shoot guns. He had sent a spy to Edinburgh to bring news of James’ arrival. This letter was sent on St Mark’s Day, 25 April^[1327].

Amid the rising excitement Norfolk was calm. He understood the situation better than the gentlemen of the Marches, who were soldiers, but not statesmen. He knew that peace or war depended on Francis I, and that England was not on such terms with France as to cause immediate alarm. Still, he thought it well to be prepared. He had such good espial in Scotland that no move could be made without his knowledge. Berwick Pursuivant reached Edinburgh on his second mission on 23 April. He carried to the Chancellor another letter which demanded the delivery of English rebels. The Scots Council was heartily tired of these demands. When Ray appeared before them he was asked, “What is the cause ye send your friars to us?” He replied, “We send none, we had liever keep them ourself.”

“If they tarried with you, ye had made martyrs of them.” “Nay,” interposed the Chancellor, “but patriarchs.”

On 25 April Ray waited on the Bishop of Aberdeen to give him Norfolk’s thanks for a present of hawks. In answer to the Bishop’s promise that he would pray that the King and all England might be made good men, Norfolk sent the message that in no country was God better served, and that the Bishop of Rome had no authority out of his own diocese. The Treasurer replied that he felt no grudge towards England for that matter, “but for the cruelness of you that put down your own poor commons.”^[1328] Ray brought back to Norfolk 250a reply from the Chancellor which again promised that the cases which he mentioned should be investigated^[1329], and a secret message from the Queen Mother that no lord in Scotland would give the King her son counsel friendly to England^[1330].

On 2 May Henry sent a gracious letter of thanks to Norfolk for his services in the north. The King still intended to make a royal progress to York, where he would declare a general pardon, with only a few exceptions. He would see about paying Norfolk’s expenses, though “to be plain with you we think that divers of the gentlemen ... might well have served us better cheap, for some part of a recompense of their former offences.... We do accept in good part the declaration of your opinion touching the Marches. Nevertheless we doubt not but you will both conform your own mind to find out the good of that order which we have therein determined, and cause other by your good mean to perceive the same.” Finally money had been sent for the victualling of Berwick and Carlisle^[1331]. Berwick was now in process of being put into a thoroughly defensible condition^[1332]. The other Border fortresses were constantly in the King’s mind, and suggestions on the subject were often laid before the Privy Council, but they seem to have had no immediate effect^[1333].

At this time Norfolk was vainly petitioning the King for leave to come to court. On 9 May he excused his repeated requests. He explained that his character was being attacked in his absence. He mentioned the rumours that he had encouraged the rebels^[1334]. It was said that he had sent for his son, the Earl of Surrey, to instruct him in northern affairs in order that he might presently take his father’s place. Norfolk protested that all these tales were false. He had never encouraged the rebels. He had sent for his son partly because he had hoped the King would give him leave to come south for a short time, and he could not have kept his retinue in the north without Surrey; and partly because “in truth I love him better than all my children, and would have gladly had him here to hunt, shoot, play cards, and entertain my servants, so that they should be less desirous of leave to go home to their wives.” Norfolk besought the King, if he thought him a true man, to allow him to come up and answer his enemies^[1335]. He protested that if he had not been on the King’s service not all the Earl of Northumberland’s lands would 251have kept him so long in the north^[1336]. If he stayed much after Michaelmas, he thought it would cost him his life. He had also many private reasons to justify his wish to return to London^[1337].

Henry replied on 13 May that he had heard none of the slanders to which Norfolk referred; if he had, he would have mentioned them to the Duke. “You know our nature is too frank to retain any such thing from him that we love and trust.” Norfolk must not credit all the light tales that reached his ears. He could not be spared from the north until after the King’s progress, which would shortly take place. Henry hoped that the Duke would settle all disputes, so that he might not be troubled with petitions. The tone of the King’s letter was friendly, but, though he declared himself assured that Norfolk had not sent for Surrey for “any purpose not to our good contentment,” yet he pointed out that as the Duke had summoned his son without consulting the King, it gave an occasion for people to think evil, which might have been avoided^[1338].

In fact Norfolk protested too much about Surrey. The cautious old nobleman believed that he had recovered after his first false step, and was beginning once more to feel his way towards the object of his ambition, the dictatorship of the north. It was the dream of many powerful men to hold the place there which the Percys alone had held. Norfolk had declared that a nobleman must rule there—that this man must have the joint powers of Warden of all the Marches and Lieutenant of the North. Then he held off and suggested that the Earl of Cumberland should have the West Marches and the Earl of Rutland the Middle and East. Norfolk did not suggest anyone to fill the great office his imagination had summoned up; he intimated that it would not become him to suggest the obvious man. In fact all his letters were full of his hatred of the north, and his fear that the climate would be the death of him. “For all the lands the Earl of Northumberland hath and had” he would not tarry there after Michaelmas^[1339]. “All the Earl of Northumberland’s land,”—at that time they become a refrain in Norfolk’s letters, the refrain of his ambition. He kept a careful eye on the dying Earl’s extravagances. If the Earl wished to sell wood, Norfolk saved the Percy forests from the axe^[1340]. Northumberland was giving away his goods and houses, even the bricks of Wressell Castle, perhaps in a vindictive effort to save something from the King. 252Norfolk reported this to Cromwell and declared that it must be stopped^[1341].

At the same time the Duke suggested that the household stuff of Jervaux and Bridlington, and of Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, and Sir John Bulmer, should be stored in the King’s wardrobe at Sheriffhutton Castle, for the use of the Council of the North, or of any nobleman whom the King might send to those parts. If the goods were sold he said that the King would not receive a third of their value^[1342]. This is another sign of the way his thoughts were tending. Later he wrote that Cromwell would marvel if he knew how often Norfolk had been urged by the northern gentlemen to ask for some of Northumberland’s lands and to settle down among them. But he was determined never again to cross the Trent northwards, unless he were with the King, or marching against the King’s enemies^[1343].

Clearer hints were never dropped. Norfolk loathed the north,—but if the King made it worth his while, very well worth his while, he was the nobleman who would be lieutenant and warden at once. Henry must have laughed with Cromwell over Norfolk’s palpable ambition. The King had fairly rid himself of the Percys, and he would never put a Howard or any other nobleman in their place. Without a considerable grant of land, Norfolk could not turn to advantage the influence which he thought he possessed in the north; nor was his fear or favour there so great as to enable him to take the Percys’ place, even though he held their lands. He had deceived the northern men, and they were not likely to forget all that they owed to “this false duke.”

The Howards had no ancient connection with the north; their influence began at Flodden and might well have ended at Doncaster, if fate had not been contrary. The Percys had been surrounded by all the splendour of hereditary right and traditional leadership; they had made the north famous, and a hundred tales gave them a place in the hearts of the people. Now the great house was represented by the old Countess who outlived all her sons, and by Sir Thomas Percy’s two little boys. Fallen though it seemed, the house of Howard could not take its place; nor did the White Lion ever put down the Blue. The Dacres might have filled the place of the greatest lords in the north, but after years of true service on the Borders the King and the Clifford feud had left Lord Dacre a ruined man. Henry had little to fear from the Earl of Cumberland, because of his many 253feuds and the hatred of his own tenants. As to the Earl of Westmorland, he was one of the few noblemen who cared less for place and power than for a quiet life and a safe head. Norfolk was allowed to imagine that he was winning the north for himself when he was really buying service for the King. No doubt Henry thought that the illusion did no harm and might make him work better.

James V of Scotland had at last embarked on his homeward voyage. It was a long and slow one. About six o’clock on the evening of Tuesday 15 May his ships lay at anchor off Scarborough. Norfolk wrote to Cromwell: “If God would have sent such good fortune, that he might have landed in these parts, I would so honestly have handled him that he should have drunk of my wine at Sheriffhutton, and the Queen also, before his return to Scotland.”^[1344] There is a sinister ring in the words. Kings of Scotland were not so often guests as prisoners in the King of England’s castles.

If Norfolk had tried the experiment, he might have found unexpected difficulty in taking James. A party went ashore from the King’s fleet to buy victuals in Scarborough, and several boats put out to James’ ship. To one Englishman James said: “Ye Englishmen have let me of my return; an if ye had not been, I had been at home forty days past. But now I am here and will be shortly at home, whoso saith nay.”

A party of twelve English fishermen came to speak with the King of Scots. On coming into his presence, they fell on their knees and “thanked God of his healthful and sound repair, showing how they had long looked for him, and how they were oppressed, slain and murdered, desiring him for God’s sake to come in, and he should have all.” To this pass had Norfolk’s pacification brought the northern men, who had hitherto hated the Scots worse than the devil. James was a good deal troubled by this offer from his uncle’s subjects. He refused to speak to a gentleman who came aboard, lest the man should say the same thing.

Presently the fleet sailed from Scarborough with so light a wind that Norfolk thought they might make Aberdeen, but not the Forth. At Whitburn, near Tynemouth, James cast anchor again, and ten Englishmen came to him with the same complaints, “promising plainly that if the said King of Scots would take upon him to come in all should be his.”^[1345] One or two boats went ashore and a party of Frenchmen and Scots landed. With them was an Englishman, 254James Crane, who was in the service of the French Vice-Admiral. He was really one of Cromwell’s spies, but he probably passed as a refugee. With his companions he met the priest of the parish, and asked what news there was in England. The priest replied, “Ill news, for they kill and hang up men in this country.” Crane seems to have abused the King of England, to lead the unsuspecting priest into further conversation. He asked where the Duke of Norfolk lay, and the priest said either at Sheriffhutton or at York; he added that the Duke dealt so cruelly with the north parts that he wished Norfolk were hanged on one side of a tree and Cromwell on the other. If the King of Scots had come home five months sooner and had entered England, the priest declared that he would have helped to carry him in triumph to London. As they talked by the seaside, he pointed out the lie of the coast: “Lo, here is as good and as ready landing for men as any place in England.”^[1346]

On 18 May eleven of James’ ships were sighted from Berwick. They lay becalmed in sight of the town from noon that day until the morning of the 19th. A party from one of the vessels landed at Alnmouth, and the Queen’s gentleman usher rode on to Edinburgh to prepare for the royal reception. Sir Thomas Clifford kept good watch while the King of Scots lay so near, and sent out horsemen during the night to see if any man came ashore^[1347]. James must have been moved by the petition of the English fishermen. When his ship drew to the northwards of Berwick, he looked back upon the town and said to the gentlemen in attendance on him, “if he lived one year he should himself break a spear on one Englishman’s breast.”

Berwick Pursuivant was again on mission to Scotland. He saw the King and Queen land at Leith haven at ten o’clock on Whitsun Eve, 19 May 1537. The Vice-Admiral of France and the Bishop of Limoges were the only great men with him. His fleet consisted of ten great ships of France and four Scots ships. On Whit Monday the King and Queen made their entry into Edinburgh “and took their lodging in the Abbey of Holyrood House.”

In Edinburgh Berwick Pursuivant met James Crane, the English spy in the French Vice-Admiral’s service. Crane, seeing by the arms of England “in a box upon his breast” that Ray was an Englishman, took him aside to talk to him. He asked Ray to carry credence to Ralph Sadler “upon a token that when the said Ralph 255Sadler was in France, he did inquire for the said James at his own house in Rouen.” The credence was an account of the voyage, especially of the two embassies of English fishermen and peasants who had spoken with James. All the French ships were going home, except the Salamander, which was a present from Francis to his son-in-law. Crane was obliged to go with his master, though he would have “given £20 on the condition that he might himself come through your Highness’ realm to show further his mind in the premisses.”

Ray reported this to Sir Thomas Clifford at Berwick, and on 26 May the account was sent on to the King^[1348]. By this time all the French ships had passed Berwick on their homeward voyage^[1349]. Norfolk called Crane’s story “some lies out of Scotland,” and assured Cromwell that it was totally false, for he himself had been at Bridlington the day after James passed, and had examined the only Englishman on the coast who had spoken to the Scots King^[1350]. Norfolk was anxious to discredit the report, as he had been insisting for some time past that the north was reduced to perfect obedience and loyalty. Sir John Neville wrote that all the people rejoiced that the King and Cromwell were coming to the north. It was a pity that Richard Cromwell was not there to hear them talk; no men ever repented so sorely as they did^[1351].

With his usual prudence Cromwell paid more heed to the foul than the fair reports. In spite of Norfolk’s scepticism Crane was summoned from France, and sent on 20 July to Norfolk at Sheriffhutton^[1352]. The Duke still made light of his story, as his geography had been much confused by the long voyage. He described a place which he said lay to the south of Scarborough, but no one could recognise it, and he could not give the names of the “false knaves” who had spoken to James^[1353]. To settle the matter Norfolk sent him with a sure, wise and secret gentleman to ride all along the north coast from Flamborough to Tynemouth in order to see if Crane could recognise the place. His description of it was that the church steeple was a sea-mark, that the church was dedicated to St Andrew, and that the vicar was one of the King’s chaplains; it was with his parish priest that Crane had held the seditious conversation. When Crane and his companion came in sight of Whitburn, Crane declared that that was the steeple. On inquiry the wise gentleman learned 256that the church was dedicated to St Andrew and that the vicar was Dr Marshall, one of the King’s chaplains. Norfolk was obliged to admit that there might be truth in Crane’s story^[1354].

Crane could not say where the fishermen lived, and he did not know their names, but he described the leader of the party as a mariner with black hair and a weather-beaten countenance^[1355]. The priest of Whitburn, Robert Hodge, was examined by Norfolk and his council. He confessed his words, but declared that Dr Marshall had never spoken sedition and often preached against the Pope^[1356]. Norfolk sent Sir Thomas Hilton, the sheriff of Durham, to discover those who had been aboard the French Admiral’s ship, and to arrest the leader of the party, if he had not gone to Shetland for the fishing^[1357]. James Crane was given a pardon and leave to return to France^[1358]. On 22 September Robert Hodge and two unnamed mariners, one of whom was the leader of the fishermen, were hanged in chains at Newcastle-upon-Tyne^[1359].

In order to prevent James’ interviews with the discontented peasants from raising false hopes in Scotland, Henry sent Ralph Sadler as ambassador to James with professions of friendship and instructions to urge the King of Scots to follow his lead by throwing off the Pope and confiscating Church property^[1360].

All this while the Duke of Norfolk had been gradually going through an immense amount of law-work. A great many people had been plundered or had lost their goods during the rebellion. Most of them must have been poor men, for little or nothing can be learnt about their wrongs. If any full account of Norfolk’s proceedings for redress remained, it would contain many local details of the Pilgrimage. On 18 May he wrote to Gardiner and Sir Francis Brian, who were on an embassy in France, with some natural self-satisfaction:—

“This country, thanked be God, is, I think, at this hour in as good obedience as any part of the realm and of such sort that of late at my coming hither I had not thought possible it should of long time have been brought to so good pass. There was marvellous spoils at the time of the insurrection through all these countries and divided in thousands of men’s hands; and yet such restitution made that at this day there is very few that is not agreed withal, and the parties satisfied. It should be a very unreasonable thing that I would command to be done here that should not be shortly accomplished in all my Lieutenancy; save 257only in Tynedale and Reedsdale, of whom I have ten pledges at Sheriffhutton which lie upon their lives if their country men do not well. Finally I pray God send us three grace merrily to meet this winter at London.”^[1361]

There are details of two cases of spoil and restitution, but as they both concern rich men, they are probably not characteristic of the rest. The first concerned the plundering of Blythman’s house at York, and has already been described^[1362]. The second was the case of Robert Holdsworth, vicar of Halifax; his vicarage was appropriated by the rebels, his goods carried off by his enemies the Tempests, and his hidden pot of gold was found by Thomas Lacy^[1363].

During the first week of Lent 1536–7 Thomas Lacy went to confession. He told his ghostly father how he had found the money and asked what he should do with it. The confessor advised him to keep it until after Low Sunday [8 April]. Two or three days after the appointed date, Lacy brought the money to his ghostly father’s room in a canvas pepper poke, and from there carried it to the vicarage, dropped it over the wall into the court, and left it. With an impulse as natural as dishonest, he kept £67 for himself; but presently he repented again and gave it up to Sir Alexander Emmet, Holdsworth’s parish priest. Out of the whole sum Lacy had spent only 26s. 6d. “about his seeding.”^[1364]

The Vicar returned to Halifax from London “after Mid-Lent Sunday” [11 March]. He had been urging his own cause with Cromwell, while Sir Henry Saville petitioned the Duke of Norfolk on his behalf. When he reached home and found the treasure gone, he did not complain to Norfolk and mentioned his loss only to the friends who knew of its hiding-place, Sir Henry Saville, Alexander Emmet, his sister and her son^[1365].

While Holdsworth was in London he had obtained writs of attachment against the Lacys and others who had plundered his vicarage. During Easter Week he went to York and begged Norfolk’s favour in the matter. The Duke promised that he should have restitution or the writs should be executed. Holdsworth was still too prudent to mention the great sum that he had lost.

About a week later Alexander Emmet delivered £789. 8s. 9d. to Holdsworth in gold, simply saying that it came to him in confession. 258The priest must have been waiting in the vicarage court for the heavy bag that came over the wall^[1366].

The matter might have ended there to the satisfaction of everyone concerned, but too many people were in the secret. The Vicar had subpoenas against Lacy and his servants, but they did not appear. Lacy said contemptuously, “If they will have my head they shall fetch it.” He had nicknamed one of his servants Audley and another Cromwell, and said he could not fail to do well having both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Privy Seal with him. He admitted that he had robbed the Vicar, but he said that the money was treasure-trove; apparently he argued from this that he had as good a right to it as any man^[1367]. By this means the rumour of “treasure-trove” reached the ears of the Duke of Norfolk, and he determined that the government should be no loser.

On 12 July Norfolk sent for all the parties to appear before him^[1368]. On 20 July the Vicar was a close prisoner, allowed to speak only to those whom Norfolk appointed. The Duke had consulted Chaloner and Babthorpe about the law of treasure-trove, and they agreed that unless the Vicar could prove the money to be his, it was the King’s. Before examining the witnesses Norfolk proposed to send the money to the King, and then, if Holdsworth had too strong a claim to be denied, the Duke would give him licence to sue for its restoration^[1369]. It was easy to guess the result of such an application.

The witnesses proved quite conclusively that the money was the Vicar’s, and that he had hidden it himself. There was no evidence that any part of it had ever been treasure-trove. Norfolk’s council believed that the money was really the Vicar’s because there were many crowns of five shillings among the coins found in the pot, and this coin had come into use very recently^[1370]. Norfolk was vexed at this turn of the case, and asked Cromwell for instructions. He collected all the Vicar’s money that he could lay hands on and accused Holdsworth of cheating the revenue, “living covetously like a man of £40 promotions,” when he could well spend £200 a year^[1371].

On 25 July Sir Henry Saville wrote to Cromwell on the Vicar’s behalf^[1372]. Holdsworth brought an action in the Court of Star Chamber against Lacy, but the result is unknown^[1373]. It is possible that the government obtained for Holdsworth restitution of his 259plundered goods, and at the same time robbed him of his fortune, but if this were so, the Vicar was not ruined. On the contrary, he retained too much money for his own safety, as in May 1556 he was murdered by thieves in the night-time in the vicarage house^[1374].

Norfolk was empowered to attend to the doctrine of the north as well as its peace. He encouraged the various anti-papal preachers who were sent there, such as Dr Layton and Dr Addison^[1375], and suggested that the Archbishop of York and the other principal ecclesiastics might not only promote “such well-learned and also well-willed priests,” but also “find others at their own charges continually to go about and preach.” If this had been done before he thought “no such follies had been attempted as hath been.”^[1376]

About the beginning of June Norfolk sent round circulars to all justices of the peace and to the remaining monasteries, forbidding them to give any relief to sturdy vagabonds. He said that the alms of the religious houses had encouraged beggars, and that the justices were slack, but now he intended so to deal with them that Cromwell would probably hear of great numbers coming southward^[1377].

On 3 June the good news of the Queen’s pregnancy was confirmed. Norfolk was in York and gave orders for general rejoicings. The Te Deum was sung in the afternoon and at night bonfires were lighted all through the city. To increase the merrymaking Norfolk gave four hogsheads of wine from his own cellar to be broached in different parts of the city for all passers-by.

York was in a ferment of preparation for the King’s visit; the countryside had to prepare lodging and stabling for a large and magnificent company. Two or three hundred extra beds were being made. Fortunately the hay-harvest was good, or it would have been hard to provide for the horses in the royal train^[1378]. But all the preparations were in vain. The King changed his mind. It is clear from Norfolk’s letters that he had never really believed that Henry would come, and had been only partly convinced by his repeated assurances. On 12 June the King sent the Duke his reasons for delaying his visit to the north until another year. The reasons were many and ingenious, such as his reluctance to leave the Queen at this critical period, and the delicate state of foreign affairs; but the real motive for delay, which Norfolk was to keep strictly to 260himself, was the King’s physical condition. His legs were worse, and his physicians advised him not to travel in the heat of the year. As he could not come to pardon the north in person, he would shortly send down “a personage of honour” with a general pardon; Norfolk might announce this. The King graciously said that he could not be better served than he was at present, but as the Duke desired his recall so earnestly, he should soon receive it. The King intended to establish a standing council and desired the Duke’s advice as to its composition^[1379].

This was the first explicit statement of the King’s intentions for the future government of the north, but it was so vaguely worded that it did not seriously clash with Norfolk’s ambition. The north might be ruled by a council, but the council might be ruled by the King’s lieutenant. Norfolk was still cautious. In his next letters, dated 16 June, he thanked the King for the promise of release. If his master knew how ill he had been he would not wonder at his desire “to be out of this cold country, where hath been two days this week great frosts in the morning, with the most cold weather that ever I saw in such a time of year.” For the Council of the North he thought the King should either send down a lieutenant or make the Bishop of Durham president; he did not recommend either of the northern earls. For the councillors he recommended Sir Thomas Tempest, Sir Marmaduke Constable, Sir William Evers, Sir Ralph Ellerker, and Sir Brian Hastings. Dr Magnus was growing old and “less able every day.” Norfolk spoke very highly of Babthorpe, Chaloner and Bowes, but they were badly paid. The Duke was heartily glad to hear that the King was sending a pardon to put despair out of “foolish, fearful heads.” He asked that ten or twelve pardons might be sent him, with blank schedules attached, in which he could insert, with the advice of his council, the names of those to be excepted from the pardon^[1380].

At this time Border affairs loom large in Cromwell’s memoranda and in the proceedings of the Privy Council, filling the place previously occupied by the northern insurgents. Lists of members proposed for the Council of the North, and of officers and pensioners on the Borders were drawn up, and amended, and drawn up again, until it is hard to say which is merely a “device” and which a final order^[1381].

261The repairs of Berwick and Sheriffhutton were proceeding as fast as lack of money would allow^[1382]. Sir Thomas Clifford was at feud with Lionel Grey, the porter of Berwick^[1383]. Norfolk wished the King to have them reconciled, as Grey was a man whom Sir William Evers, the deputy warden of the East Marches, could not spare^[1384].

On the Middle Marches Sir Reynold Carnaby had succeeded the murdered Roger Fenwick in the dangerous office of Keeper of Tynedale. Norfolk disliked Carnaby, who was a creature of Cromwell’s, and said sneeringly “that by hearing say he is more than half weary of his being in these parts.” On 26 June Norfolk expected the Council of the Marches to wait on him at Sheriffhutton. He intended to “lay it sore to them” that their country was no stronger against the Scots raiders of Liddesdale, “which weekly doth run upon Carnaby’s offices.”^[1385]

The Duke was investigating the circumstances of Roger Fenwick’s murder. The three murderers, John Charleton, Rinian Charleton and John Dod, fled to Scotland and were never captured. Lionel Grey accused Edward Charleton, Cuthbert Charleton, John Heron of Chipchase, George Heron his son and John Heron of the Hall Barns his kinsman, as instigators of the murder^[1386]. This accusation was very satisfactory to Norfolk, as the Charletons and Little John Heron of Chipchase were already wanted by the government for their share in the rebellion, but it would be safer and less awkward to punish them nominally for the murder. Little John Heron was captured and sent to London, where he was imprisoned in the Fleet. Heron of the Hall Barns fled to Scotland. George Heron appeared before Norfolk, but he established his innocence so clearly that the Duke wrote to Grey to require proof of the Herons’ guilt^[1387]. On 7 July Lionel Grey brought to the Duke “one of the men that hath detected” the part played by the Herons in Fenwick’s murder^[1388]. This sounds as if there were other witnesses, but later Jerry Charleton alias Topping is described as “the only accuser of the Herons,”^[1389] and his character was so bad that in the end his evidence was discredited^[1390]. At present, however, it was considered sufficient, but the Charletons could not be captured by force or stratagem^[1391].

262Cromwell suggested that John Heron of Chipchase might be sent north to stand his trial for Fenwick’s murder. Norfolk replied on 20 July that he must not be sent north until the time was ripe. If he did not know that he was accused of the murder, he must be led to believe that he would soon be set free. If he had already been charged with it, he must be so closely imprisoned that he could send no word of warning to his son George or his son-in-law Cuthbert Charleton. It was important to lull the suspicions of the Charletons, for it was quite impossible to capture them while they were on the alert. Their own country was almost impenetrable, and if they were attacked with fire and sword they had only to cross the hills to Liddesdale^[1392].

On 27 August Norfolk was still hoping to apprehend Edward and Cuthbert Charleton and George Heron. As to Little John Heron, Norfolk directed Cromwell as follows:

“Which John I require your good lordship may be secretly conveyed hither and so delivered to the officers of my house, to be by them conveyed to me at Newcastle, to be ordered according to justice. I would he should be here on 20 September, and conveyed with a hood on his head, and so secretly kept by the way that no man should know him unto [until] his deliverance; which would also be in the night because I have many pledges of Tynedale and Reedsdale here. For an it were known he were here, I should neither take his son nor the others that I would have. And if it be not known in the Fleet whither he shall go, but conveyed in the night, the better.”^[1393]

On 17 September Norfolk held an assize at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He made George Heron foreman of the inquest, and the three murderers were condemned in their absence. George Heron did his part, not suspecting that Norfolk, who showed him such a fair countenance, was planning to convict himself and his father of the same crime. George offered to go home to Tynedale and arrest an arrant traitor. Norfolk sent him off with the comment, “If he do I shall have in my hands two false harlots.” The Duke intended to arrest George Heron on his return, and to seize his father’s house, goods and lands for the King’s use. The news from Tynedale was that Cuthbert Charleton was dead^[1394].

At the next assizes, on 26 September, John Heron and Edward Charleton were indicted in their absence as accessories to the murder of Roger Fenwick. John Heron had not been sent north, and there was no evidence against George Heron, but nevertheless the latter 263was arrested and imprisoned^[1395]. The Charletons were outlawed, and the Keeper of Tynedale carried on a long guerilla war against them, in which the Charletons, having allies in Scotland, were on the whole successful^[1396].

Little John Heron of Chipchase was never sent north with a hood over his face to be hanged. He was called before the Privy Council and convinced the King of his loyalty and worth. In 1539 he rode home in triumph as Constable of Harbottle, with a pension in his pocket^[1397]. Edward Charleton was pardoned in 1539; even John Heron of the Hall Barns received mercy and was employed in carrying letters of importance to the north^[1398]. At length, in August 1540, Little John Heron was offered the post of Keeper of Tynedale. He refused, unless he were given Reedsdale as well, and he was given both^[1399]. Thus he completely superseded his old enemy Sir Reynold Carnaby. Sir Thomas Percy was avenged so far as vengeance lay in Little John Heron’s power. The wily mosstrooper was one of the few men who discovered the length of Henry VIII’s foot.

After this digression it is necessary to return to Norfolk at Sheriffhutton Castle. On 2 July 1537 Sir Cuthbert Radcliff, Thomas Carnaby, Cuthbert Shaftoe and George Heron waited on the Duke, and declared the true state of Northumberland. The raiding was chiefly the work of Liddesdale, reinforced by English outlaws. Norfolk daily expected an answer from the King of Scots to his repeated complaints of the protection which English outlaws received in Scotland. Sir John Widdrington was trying to capture certain Scots thieves in England who would be useful as exchanges. The Northumbrians convinced Norfolk that Tynedale had not done nearly as much harm as was reported, but no restitution had been made as yet^[1400].

The West Marches were reorganised about the beginning of July. Sir Thomas Wharton was made deputy warden, in spite of Norfolk’s advice to the contrary. He was also made steward of the abbey of Holm Cultram and the priories of Carlisle and Wetherall. Under him there were four commissioners. Sir Thomas Wentworth became captain of Carlisle, and thirty-three gentlemen of those parts received patents as the King’s pensioners. All these commissions and patents, with the oaths for the different officials, were dated 26428 June^[1401]. They were first sent to Norfolk, who forwarded them on 3 July to Wentworth, together with a summons to all the gentlemen to meet him at York, where he was going to witness Aske’s execution on 12 July^[1402].