At one or two o’clock on the morning of Thursday 26 October Norfolk reached Doncaster in answer to Shrewsbury’s summons. He came in the greatest anxiety, offering to sacrifice his honour to his loyalty, but, considering how closely his political aims resembled those of the rebels it is probable that he was only partly sincere in this. He may have intended double-dealing with the King as well as the enemy—soothing Henry’s anger by assurances of the piecrust nature of his promises, while he secretly hoped that the King would not dare to set aside terms made openly in his name. Henry at least suspected this, but however true it might be the state of affairs at Doncaster must have convinced the most eager general that it was wise to treat rather than to fight. Lack of food, fuel and shelter, scanty wages and disease were rapidly sapping the feeble loyalty of Shrewsbury’s men. If Norfolk did not really see and believe the position to be desperate, he still reported it so, and eagerly as the King expected and demanded more favourable tidings, none of the royal officers attempted to modify the Duke’s gloomy reports[1217].
At dawn a great muster was proclaimed in the Pilgrims’ host. The vanguard came forward from Pickburn and the middleward from Hampole. After the morning had fully come, “the whole host appeared at the Stowping Sise before Doncaster.”[1218] Stowping Sise and Scawsby Lease[1219], which is also mentioned as the mustering place, are different parts of the plain on the north bank of the Don.
With spirits quite undamped by the wet night, company after company filed past and took its place in the ranks behind St Cuthbert’s crimson and silver standard and the Pilgrimage banner of the Five Wounds of Christ, which device every man wore in miniature on his breast and back. All “the flower of the north” were there[1220]. The captains spurred up and down, striving to bring their men into good array; and the companies engaged in friendly rivalry, each trying to excel its neighbours in order and discipline. Experience and popularity both proved useful in this matter; Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, Sir Ralph Ellerker, Robert Bowes, and Roger Lassells marshalled the smartest companies[1221].
Priests and friars moved along the lines, commending and encouraging the soldiers; no man, they said, should fear to die in defence of the Faith, with the sign of Christ’s Passion over his heart[1222]. Perhaps the ranks chanted the hymn made for the Pilgrims by the monks of Sawley. It is well fitted for a marching song, and there is a certain charm, between quaintness and wildness, in the irregular lines, which are at least simple and sincere:
It is a relief to find that the vicar of Brayton was not with the host. That disreputable person had gone quietly home, after he had secured, at the spoiling of Sir Brian Hastings’ house, fifteen head of cattle and at least £3 worth of goods[1224].
It is impossible to give the exact number of the Pilgrims. Aske, who was in the best position to know, twice stated that there were 30,000 men or more at the muster, divided into vanguard and middleward, and that the rearward at Pontefract were 12,000 strong; but even Aske probably had not very definite information[1225]. The only other witness who gave figures was Marmaduke Neville, a captain of the Bishopric, who stated that there were 28,000 at the muster and 12,000 at Pontefract[1226].
There is no doubt that, even if the rearward was not 12,000 strong, it was believed to be so in the forward host. Allowing the same number for the vanguard and middleward, there would be 24,000 at the muster, and 36,000 men would be the total number of Pilgrims assembled in arms under Aske’s direct command. The numbers are large, considering that only Yorkshire and Durham had sent men, that, as the leaders declared, every man was efficiently if roughly armed and provided with 20s., and that the greater part were horsed. It is possible that their strength was greatly overestimated.
The vanward was composed of all the men from the Bishopric of Durham, under the command of Lords Lumley, Neville and Latimer and Sir Thomas Hilton, and the men of Cleveland and part of Richmondshire under Sir Thomas Percy and Robert Bowes; in the middleward were the men of the East and West Ridings, and of the Ainstey of York, with almost all the knights and gentlemen or their eldest sons from those parts, under the command of Sir Robert Constable and Lord Darcy. These forces completed the muster at Stowping Sise. The rearward at Pontefract included the western parts of Richmondshire, together with the men from Masham, Ripon, Kirkbyshire, Wensleydale, Fendale and Netherdale, under the command of Lord Scrope, Sir Christopher Danby, Sir William Mallory, the Nortons, the Markenfields and many more knights and gentlemen. Aske moved constantly between the two forward divisions, though his place, in case of an engagement, was with his own Howdenshire men in the middleward[1227].
When all were in array, the lords and gentlemen held a council before the host. They agreed that Sir Thomas Hilton, Sir Ralph Ellerker, Robert Bowes, and Robert Challoner should go on the embassy to the Duke. At the head of so splendid an army, with Doncaster lying before them, the war party seem to have made their last suggestion of immediate attack; the town might be taken almost without effort[1228]; Shrewsbury and Norfolk might be captured and forced to take the Pilgrims’ oath. But the moderate party again prevailed; they argued that the more evident their superiority, the more likely they were to obtain favourable terms. The leaders resolved on the five essential points which were weighty enough to explain their rising. The articles were not written down, but Robert Bowes undertook to repeat them to the Duke from memory[1229], an easy feat, as they were in substance the original five:
First, that the Faith might be truly maintained.
Second, that the ancient liberties of the Church might be maintained.
Third, that the unpopular statutes might be repealed and that the law might stand as it did at the beginning of the King’s reign “when his nobles did order under his Highness.”
Fourth, that the “villein blood” might be expelled from the Council and noble blood restored.
Fifth, that Cromwell, Richard Riche, and the heretic bishops might be deprived and banished or otherwise punished as subverters of the laws of God and of the commonwealth[1230].
On these terms the Pilgrims were willing to accept the King’s general pardon and return peaceably to their homes. The articles are expressed in vague and wide terms, but the messengers who carried them were ready to amplify and explain their provisions. The vagueness may have been adopted deliberately because, in the first place, the Pilgrims did not wholly agree among themselves—some, for instance, were warmly in favour of the papal supremacy, while others were willing to accept the royal supremacy. In the second place, the general character of the articles would make it easier for the delegates on both sides to come to an agreement. There was no expression used which came within the scope of the Treason Act, and there were no details over which the two parties might haggle and quarrel. Henry, with his usual adroitness, seized upon this vagueness at once and turned it to his own advantage. He declared that he could make no direct answer to articles which were so general, vague and obscure. His flatterers borrowed his expressions. Archbishop Lee declared that the rebels would not write down the articles for “their enterprise could not be avowed.”[1231] Henry’s panegyrist, William Thomas, declared that “when they [the rebels] came to reasoning in very deed they wist not well what to demand except the preservation of their holy mother church, which their Prelates and Religious did evermore beat into their heads.”[1232] Yet when the Pilgrims, in answer to the King’s criticism, proceeded to draw up a detailed list of their grievances, they were told that it was “a double iniquity to fall into rebellion and also after to procure matters to be set forth to justify that rebellion.”[1233] The two statutes which the Pilgrims most strongly opposed were the Act of Succession, which declared Princess Mary illegitimate, and the Act of Suppression. The latter was covered by the second article, and they were afraid to press the other too strongly, lest they should compromise Mary, who had of late been treated more kindly. The third article included this statute, besides the Act of Uses, and all the other unpopular measures of the long parliament, even to the alienation of the Percy estates to the crown. The Pilgrims probably did not hope to bring about such an extremely sweeping reaction, but they realised that in order to obtain a little from Henry they must begin by demanding a great deal.
Four hostages were delivered to Aske in pledge for the safety of Sir Thomas Hilton and his companions; the hostages returned with the Archbishop and Sir Robert Constable to Hampole nunnery for the night[1234]. There was general hope of good results from the meeting, and both Darcy and Constable were anxious for an agreement[1235]. They were encouraged by the gentlemen from Norfolk’s camp, “Mr Herington, Mr Vellers, Mr Litilton” and another whose name is not known, but may have been Gifford[1236]. Villiers and Gifford were afterwards accused of having expressed sympathy with the Pilgrims[1237], and on Gifford’s return to Buckinghamshire rumour said that he was prepared to raise a rebellion if the churches were attacked[1238].
If the gentlemen were anxious for a peaceful issue, the commons were by no means opposed to it. Otherwise the negotiations could scarcely have proceeded so far. The commons were prepared to fight if the King refused the petition, but if he granted it without trouble, so much the better. As to the King’s soldiers, the Pilgrims regarded them rather as friends who were unwillingly forced to take part against them than as enemies. All the southern men, they said, “thought as much” as they, but the southrons dared not show it; as for themselves, they were plain northern fellows, and said what they thought. The Pilgrims were so certain of success against the King’s reluctant levies that their sporting instincts seem to have revolted against so easy a victory. “They wished the King had sent some younger lords against them than my lord of Norfolk and my lord of Shrewsbury. No lord in England would have stayed them but my lord of Norfolk,” whom they honoured as the victor of Flodden, and suspected to be as much opposed to Cromwell and the Suppression as themselves[1239].
At noon on Friday 27 October, in due fulfilment of the agreement, Sir Thomas Hilton and his three companions returned across the bridge and were delivered in exchange for the hostages. The result of the meeting was not final. Norfolk, Shrewsbury, Rutland, Huntingdon, Surrey and their council had received the four and listened to their grievances. Finding that they brought no written copy of the articles, Norfolk ordered them to be written down at Bowes’ dictation[1240]. The King’s nobles said that they were willing to meet a party of the Pilgrims’ leaders, as the latter had proposed, on Doncaster bridge, where they would discuss the articles in detail. Hilton and the others agreed to a meeting on the same day of about thirty on each side, and hastened to announce the arrangement to their own leaders. The representatives had to be chosen speedily. They were headed by Darcy, Latimer, Lumley, Sir Robert Constable, Sir John Bulmer, and the four who had crossed in the morning. Aske did not go with them, but held a second great muster on the plain. Such a demonstration would remind the southern host of their strength, guard against any attempt to capture their leaders on the bridge, and keep the Pilgrims together in order to hear the result, whatever it might be. Aske “ordered the whole host standing in perfect array to within night.”[1241] As time went on and still the conference on the bridge did not break up, some murmuring arose in the ranks. The old cry was raised that the gentlemen would make terms for themselves and betray the commons to the King’s vengeance[1242]. Aske had stayed with them to quiet these fears. Though their suspicion was not justified on this occasion, the commons had grounds for the fear of the gentlemen’s desertion. It was that which brought confusion and failure on the Lincolnshire rising.
No complete account remains of the conference on Doncaster bridge. It seems probable, however, that Norfolk attacked the Pilgrims’ representatives on their weak side, in the very way that the commons feared. They were all gentlemen, he may have said, and by their own account they had been forced to take the rebels’ oath against their wills. They were now at some distance from their captors, and near the King’s troops; let them desert in a body and leave the commons without leaders. The King would doubtless pardon and reward all who took his part at such a crisis. Darcy’s retort was to turn to the Earl of Shrewsbury. “Talbot,” he said, “hold up thy long clee[1243] and promise me the King’s favour, and I will come to Doncaster to you.” Shrewsbury’s honour was not so accommodating as Norfolk’s. “Well, my lord Darcy, then ye shall not come [in],” he replied frankly[1244].
Failing in this direct attack, Norfolk seems to have betaken himself to treachery, or half-treachery, in an attempt to be on good terms with both sides. The Pilgrims desired a religious reaction, and Norfolk’s views were well known to be conservative. It was said that he had persuaded the King to countenance the doctrine of purgatory in the Ten Articles[1245].
The Pilgrims required the repeal of certain statutes. Norfolk was reported to have said at Nottingham that the Act of Uses was the worst act that ever was made[1246], and on the present occasion he was said to have told the Pilgrims that “it was pity they were on life, so to give over the Act of Uses,” which was not mentioned in the articles[1247]. Norfolk denied these last words, and the King professed to believe his denial[1248], but they were afterwards brought up against him[1249].
Darcy and probably others spoke strongly against Cromwell[1250]. Norfolk could truthfully assure them that he hated Cromwell as much as they did.
The Earl of Surrey seems to have committed an indiscretion on his way north. At Cambridge and Thetford he had heard and applauded a song against Suffolk, which was sung by a wandering fiddler, John Hogon, to the popular tune of “The Hunt Is Up.” The song had as little rhyme or metre as most political songs and ran:
No more is preserved[1251]. In July 1537 Surrey was in serious danger on account of a charge which Darcy brought against him—probably that he had promised his support to the Pilgrims[1252].
How far Norfolk encouraged the Pilgrims was never discovered, but Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1649) relates:
“All this great service of the Duke of Norfolk yet could not exempt him from calumny: For the Lord Darcy during his imprisonment had accused him, as favouring the rebels’ articles when they first met at Doncaster: But the Duke denied it, offering the Duel; saying, that Aske (who suffered at York before the said Lord) told him that said Lord’s intentions; who (he said) bare him ill-will ever since the Duke had solicited the said Lord to deliver Aske into his hands, when he was in chief credit with the rebels; which Darcy denying, some expostulation pass’d between them. Nevertheless I find the King was so well satisfied of the Duke, that those things were pass’d over without further questioning.”[1253]
Some of these statements are manifestly incorrect. Aske did not suffer before Darcy, but a fortnight after, and this part of the story seems to be a confused memory of Aske’s last words concerning Norfolk and Cromwell, not Norfolk and Darcy[1254]. On the other hand it is true that the Duke solicited Darcy to kidnap Aske, much to Darcy’s indignation, and this is mentioned in no other early printed account of the Pilgrimage. It is possible that Herbert may have had access to some report of Darcy’s examination, now lost, and may have found these interesting particulars there.
Assuming that Herbert’s story is substantially true, it is easy to understand the meaning of the terms on which a truce was finally arranged. Norfolk was to ride to the King in all haste, accompanied by Sir Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes, whose expenses would be paid by the lords and knights of the Pilgrimage[1255]. The messengers were to lay the Pilgrims’ petition before the King and to return with his answer. Within the next two days, both armies must disperse, and a truce, binding on both sides, was to last until the messengers returned. These terms at first sight appear to be much less favourable than the Pilgrims might have been expected to exact in their commanding position, but Norfolk’s friendly attitude makes all clear. So far were the Pilgrims from going over to the King that Norfolk promised to be on their side. He did not yet declare himself openly, because he could be of more use to them while he continued nominally in the King’s service, but his influence at court, backed by their armed demonstration, might reasonably appear a sufficient guarantee for the success of their cause. When at length the thirty returned from the bridge to the impatient Pilgrims they were able to announce the terms on which the formal appointment had been concluded with the King’s nobles, but as Norfolk required secrecy to be observed with regard to his own intentions, they could not explain their full grounds for confidence. Nevertheless the Pilgrims seem to have been well enough contented with the results[1256].
Norfolk’s state of mind is best shown in his letter to the Council, written a couple of days later on his road south. Henry, angry and suspicious, believed that his desperation was assumed or, at least, exaggerated, but the letter bears evident traces of having been composed by a man in great fear and distress of mind and body.
“my gode lordes I came to this towne this nyght late wher I founde the skantest soper I had many yeres as wery a man as can be and with contynewall watche and agony of mynd so tanned [?] that in my liff I never was in that case I have be[en] a bed now iii howrys and ii tymes waked in that tyme the one with lettres fro my lord of Suffolk th’ oder fro the Kynges highnes of the xxvii of this moneth the contentes wheroff shuld be not necessary to answer our affaires being in the trade they now be in. alas my god lordes I have served his highnes many tymes without reproch and now inforced to appoynt with the rebelles my hert is nere broken. and notwithstondyng that in every mannes mowth it is sayde in our armye that I never served his grace so well as now as in dissolvyng the army of th’ enemy without los of ours yet fearyng how his maiestie shall take the dispeachyng of our bande I am the most unquiet man of mynde lyvyng. all others here joyfull and I only sorowfull. alas that the valiannt hert of my lord steward wold not suffer hym to have taried abouts trent but with his fast hastyng forwardes to bryng us into the most bareyne countre of the realme wheroff hath insewed th’ effectes that I saw long afore woll fall Gode my lordes it was not the feare of th’ enemys hath caused us to appoynt, but thre other sore poyntes. foulle wether ande no howsing for horse nor man at the most not for the iiid part of the army and no wode to make fiers withall, honger both for men and horsis of suche sort that of trouth I thynk never Inglishe man saw the like. pestilence in the towne mervelous fervent and of suche sort that wher I and my son lay in a fryers x or xii howsis sore infected within ii butts length, on fryday at nyght the mayers wiff and ii of his doghters and one servant died in one howse how many others of the towne I know [not] but of souldyers ix and if ther wer lefte in the towne or within v myles one lode of hey or one lode of ootes, pese or beanys all the purveyors say untrewly. which iii poyntes these ar for an armye I report me to your wisdomes and to have advansed to th’ enemys no vitayle for man nor horse but all devasted by th’ enemys and not possible to have yeven batayle but upon apparaunt los theroff. and if we shuld have retyred in enemyte assewred rewyn of our company. havying no horsmen and they all the floure of the north and how at every streyte they shuld at their will have set on the formest part or the hindermost your wisdomes can well consyder. and my lordes accordyng to my dewtie to advertise the trouth. thogh never prince had a company of more trew valiaunt noble men and jantlemen yet right few of souldiers but that thoght and think their quarelles to be gode and godly. the companys that came with my lord marques and me I trust wold have done their partes and the noblemen of the rest. but I feare what th’ oders woll. my lords what case we wer in when roger ratclyff[1257] and I wept secretly togyders I report me to you neyther of us bothe but with gode will wold have be[en] prisoners in turkey to have had it at the poynt it is now. thogh not as we wold it wer and yet onys agayne my lords wo wo wo worth the tyme that my lord steward went so far forth for and he had not ye shuld have herd other newes. ffy ffy upon the lord darcy the most arraunt traytor that ever was lyvyng and yet both his sonnys trew knightes. old sir roberd constable as ill as he and all his blode trew men fynally my gode lordes if the kynges highnes shuld wright to me to gather the army to gyders it is not possible to be done. and for godds sake help that his highnes cause not my lord of Suffolk to put any man to deth unto my comyng. nor openly to call the lord darcy traytor and also to stay that I be not in his displesure unto the tyme I may be herd and then Judge me accordyng to my desertes scribled at tuxford at v in the mornyng this sonday.
Late as it was, Darcy and Aske rode to Pontefract on the evening of the conference, and next morning, Saturday 28 October, they proclaimed the truce and ordered the rearward to go home. It was easier to give the order than to see it obeyed. The dalesmen had come far and were very reluctant to go home empty-handed, without any definite triumph. They had not been represented at the conference, and consequently felt that the appointment need not bind them. Their captains, Lord Scrope, Sir Christopher Danby, and the others, were willing to accept the truce, but the commons were wild and much more difficult to control than those of the forward divisions. Nevertheless in the end the commands, arguments and persuasions of Aske, Darcy and Sir Richard Tempest, seconded by the efforts of their own leaders, prevailed on the aggrieved and disappointed rearward, and they sulkily set out on their homeward march, leaving Pontefract empty for the rest of the army, which lay there that night[1259].
On the same day Darcy received a message from Thomas Grice, who had heard from Lancashire that the Earl of Derby intended to attack Sawley Abbey[1260]. Aske immediately sent the news of the truce to the Pilgrims there, and Darcy wrote to request Shrewsbury to stop Derby’s operations. It has already been shown how these messages prevented a collision between the opposing forces[1261]. At the same time Aske sent messengers to all the places in which there had been risings with “the most special letters that could be devised” commanding the Pilgrims to leave the castles they were besieging, break off their musters and go peaceably home[1262]. The reception of these letters has been described above.
Norfolk despatched a messenger on Saturday to carry the news of the truce to the King, and set out himself with Ellerker and Bowes on the same day[1263].
On Sunday 29 October the King’s heralds, Chester and Carlisle, watched the last men of the Pilgrims’ host “disparple” at Pontefract and take their way home over Ferrybridge. The heralds were back at Doncaster before noon, where Shrewsbury’s army was also disbanding[1264]. Northward went the insurgents, southward the King’s men,—a strangely peaceful parting. At Tadcaster William Stapleton bade farewell to his men of Beverley, “desiring them to keep good rule” on the homeward march, and went back to Wighill, returning to his usual autumn hunting and shooting as though he had never been the captain of a rebel host[1265]. Thus the uneasy quiet of an armed truce fell on England at the end of October 1536.
Norfolk’s anxious letter shows that he expected the King to be very angry at the news of the truce. Yet all the advantages of it were on the King’s side. It was very unlikely that the Pilgrims would have another opportunity of striking so crushing a blow as that which they had deliberately foregone. Henry did not fail to realise the advantages of his position, although he was furious at the way in which they were obtained. He felt it a blot on his honour that his lieutenants should have made terms with the rebels, instead of scattering them, with or without bloodshed, and selecting a suitable number for execution; but as the rebels had dispersed, his experience taught him that they were very unlikely to assemble again in such large numbers, and he was convinced that with a little delay, a little diplomacy, and plenty of southern musters, the north might be brought into complete subjection without any concessions being made at all.
When the problem is considered in the light thrown on Henry’s character by the later events of his reign, it is surprising that the leaders of the Pilgrimage should have expected him to give way so easily. It is practically certain that while Henry lived and ruled he would never have changed his policy. The rebels did not propose to dethrone him; yet by no other means could his work be undone. This they never realised till too late. It must be remembered that Henry had reigned for twenty years before doing anything that greatly alarmed his most conservative subjects. By making the truce, the Pilgrims preserved their consistency. If the King refused their petition and civil war ensued, he and not they would be responsible. But as a matter of fact, they did not believe that the King was in earnest about the religious changes. In their eyes it was all some devilry of Cromwell’s. It was too absurd that the monasteries should be suppressed; they had been there for hundreds of years,—and how could the country do without them? Except for the wandering reformers and their scattered disciples, English people believed the New Learning to be not only wicked but ridiculous. Within two years of his death, Sir Thomas More was busily writing most excellent and amusing little tracts proving that there was not really the slightest danger that Catholic England would be infected with heresy. Although things had now gone so much further, Aske and his followers still believed implicitly in the strength of their cause. It was impossible that the Faith should fail to triumph in the end. Wolsey had suppressed monasteries and countenanced the hated divorce, but he fell. Anne Boleyn had caused the death of More, Fisher, and the Carthusian monks, but she had followed them to the scaffold. Cromwell must go the same way. If once he were dead, and Norfolk, with the other conservative lords, restored to full power, the work of the last four years would disappear without difficulty—so the Pilgrims thought—and all might go on as if no dark-haired coquette and no “Englishman Italianate” had ever crossed the destinies of England. A complete reaction seemed perfectly easy then. Looking back, it is equally easy to talk very wisely of tendencies and inevitable results; but no age can tell whither it is tending. The Pilgrims could not see that there was no going back—that the New Learning was bound to triumph and to regenerate as well as destroy—that despotism had yet a great part to play before it was shaken and dragged down by civil war and revolution. They were so sure of their own strength that they were pathetically willing to behave with chivalrous moderation to the side which they regarded as the weaker.
Note A. North-country readers will not need to be told that the commander-in-chief at Flodden was Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, afterwards second Duke of Norfolk, and that his eldest son, who appears so frequently in this book as the third Duke of Norfolk, was his second in command. The latter was then simply Lord Thomas Howard, Admiral of England. He played an important part in the campaign. Holinshed gives him the credit of suggesting the strategy which placed the English forces between the Scots army and the Border. In the field he commanded the vanguard, with the centre of which he fought. He was said to have gone into battle loudly challenging the King of Scots to single combat, and to have performed great deeds, slaying the Earl of Crawford with his own hand. At the moment when the issue was most doubtful,—when the dying Marmion cried:—
Lord Thomas was actually standing firm in the face of the Scottish attack; taking the Agnus Dei from his neck, he sent it to his father as a token to hasten to his assistance. He was regarded as the hero of the day no less than Surrey[1266].
Note B. M. Bapst has shown that the correct date of the letter from Norfolk to Cromwell, printed in L. and P. XI, 21, as belonging to 1536, is really 1537[1267].