The King was at first as well satisfied with the advantage gained by the appointment at Doncaster, as he was displeased with the means by which it was obtained. “So sudden recess” was a stain on his honour “if the contrary might have been maintained.” However, the thing was done, and it only remained to bring the northern men to a sense of their wickedness and graciously grant them a pardon on the same terms as the pardon to Lincolnshire, namely, that they would take and deliver such culprits as the King’s vengeance demanded, and submit themselves humbly to his mercy, taking oaths of future obedience[1268].
Henry does not seem to have realised at first that there was any danger of another rising. On Sunday 29 October he was summoning an army to meet the rebels, which, he declared, he would lead in person[1269]. Next day news of the appointment had come, and these musters were countermanded, with the proviso that the men must be ready again at reasonable warning. General pardons to all rebels dwelling north of Doncaster for offences committed before 1 November were drafted on 2 November, in terms resembling the Lincolnshire pardon. The excepted persons were Robert Aske, Hutton of Snape, Kitchen of Beverley, William Ombler the bailiff, Henry Coke of Durham shoemaker, Maunsell vicar of Brayton, and four others unnamed[1270]. Henry considered that to demand only ten culprits after a month of open rebellion was a display of the most princely lenity, and no doubt from his own point of view he was right. It was intended that this pardon, or rather promise of pardon—for each individual was to sue in Chancery for his own—should be proclaimed throughout the north by the King’s heralds, who must observe and report on the state of the country, especially noticing how deep might be the supposed penitence of the commons, and how far they were determined to support the restored monks and nuns. The heralds were also to read long lectures on the folly of the rebels’ demands, the wickedness of rebellion, and the beneficence of the King[1271].
On Sunday 29 October Latimer preached the sermon at Paul’s Cross. His text was “Put on all the armour of God,” and he took occasion to refer to the northern men, who wore “the Cross and the Wounds before and behind,” in order to “deceive the poor ignorant people, and bring them to fight against both the King, the Church, and the Commonwealth.” He compared the rebels to the Devil, who also professed to put on the armour of God to deceive the ignorant, and he exhorted his hearers to be steadfast and loyal, and to assume the true armour of a Christian, with all the elaborate allegories and analogies for which the subject gives scope[1272].
All the King’s plans were formed between 29 October, when news of the appointment reached London, and 2 November, when Norfolk arrived at court. It may be imagined with what anxious hearts Norfolk, Bowes and Ellerker set out for Windsor on Saturday 28 October[1273]. They were followed by Fitzwilliam as the representative of Suffolk and the other lords at Lincoln, who were almost as uneasy as Norfolk with regard to the King’s attitude[1274]. Norfolk was so much worn out by his exertions that he could not travel more than thirty miles a day[1275]. From Grantham on 30 October he wrote to ask whether he should bring Bowes and Ellerker straight to court, or leave them in London until he and Lord Talbot, who had come up with them, had seen the King[1276]. The whole party was summoned to Windsor, where they arrived at ten o’clock on the morning of Thursday 2 November, but Norfolk was commanded to come into the royal presence first. After dinner the King sent for the northern gentlemen. On first seeing them, Henry could not repress an outburst of rage, but he allowed himself to be soothed by Norfolk and other members of the Council, and in the end promised to write an answer to the articles with his own hand[1277]. He seemed to be taking Norfolk’s action so quietly that Fitzwilliam sent a reassuring letter to Suffolk[1278].
Henry’s calm was partly due to the fact that he did not yet realise fully the crisis to which affairs had come. He saw that the danger had been very great, and that he was not yet in a position to punish disaffection with severity, but he still believed that the worst was over. The rebels had dispersed, and a temporary show of mildness on his part was all that was required. He could not refuse a very wide pardon, but there was no need to contemplate any concessions to the Pilgrims’ impudent demands, which they were no longer able to press upon him. Holding this opinion, he drew up an answer to the articles in his own hand, “and no creature was privy thereto until it was finished.”[1279] It ran as follows:
“First, as touching the maintenance of the Faith; the terms be so general, that hard they be to be answered; but if they mean the Faith of Christ to which all Christian men be most obliged, we declare and protest ourself to be he that always do and have minded to die and live in the purity of the same, and that no man can or dare set his foot by ours in proving of the contrary; marvelling not a little that ignorant people will go about or take upon them to instruct us, (which something have been noted learned), what the right Faith should be, or that they would be so ingrate and unnatural to us, their most rightful King, without any our desert, upon false reports and surmises, to suspect us of the same, and give rather credence to forged light tales than to the approved truth by us these twenty-eight years used, and by our deeds approved.
To the second, which toucheth the maintenance of the Church, and liberties of the same; this is so general a proposition that without distinctions no man with truth can answer it neither by God’s laws nor by the laws of the realm. For first the Church which they mean must be known; secondly, whether they be lawful or unlawful liberties which they require; and these known I doubt not but they shall be answered according to God’s law, equity and justice. But yet, for all their generality, this I dare assever, that (meaning what Church they list) we have done nothing in their prejudice that may not be abidden by, both by God’s law and man’s; and in our own Church, whereof we be the Supreme Head here in Earth, we have not done so much prejudice as many of our predecessors have done upon much less grounds. Wherefore, since it is a thing which nothing pertaineth to any of you our commons, nor that you bear anything therein, I cannot but reckon a great unkindness and unnaturalness, in that ye had liever a churl or two should enjoy those profits of their monasteries, in supportation of vicious and abominable life, than I your prince for supportation of my extreme charges, done for your defence.
The third toucheth three things; the laws, the common wealth, the directors of the laws under us. Touching the laws, we expressly dare testify that (blind men deeming no colours, nor yet being judges) it shall be duly proved that there were never in any of our predecessors’ days so many wholesome, commodious and beneficial acts made for the common wealth, and yet I mean it since their time that would fain have thank without desert. For Our Lord forbid (seeing we have been these twenty-eight years your King) that both we and our Council should have lost so much time as not to know now better than when we came first to our reign, what were the common wealth and what were not. And though outrecuidance of some may chance will not let them to acknowledge it so, yet I trust and doubt not but the most part of our loving subjects (specially those which be not seduced by false reports) do both think it, accept it, and find it so. Now, touching the common wealth; what King hath kept you all his subjects so long in wealth and peace; so long without taking or doing wrong one to the other; so indifferently minister[ed] justice to all, both high and low; so defended you all from outward enemies; so fortified the frontiers of this realm, to his no little and in a manner inestimable charges? and all for your wealths and sureties. What King hath given among you more general or freer pardons? What King hath been loather to punish his subjects, or showed more mercy amongst them? These things being so true as no true man can deny them, it is an unnatural and unkind demeanour of you our subjects to believe or deem the contrary of it, by whose report so ever it should be. As touching the beginning of our reign, where ye say so many noblemen were councillors; who were then councillors I well remember and yet of the temporalty I note none but two worthy calling noble; the one Treasurer of England [the Earl of Surrey, Norfolk’s father], the other High Steward of our house [the Earl of Shrewsbury]; others, as the Lords Marney and Darcy, but scant well born gentlemen; and yet of no great lands till they were promoted by us and so made knights and lords; the rest were lawyers and priests, save two bishops, which were Canterbury and Winchester. If these then be the great number of noblemen that ye speak of and that ye seemed then to be content withal, why then now be ye not much better content with us, which have now so many nobles in deed both of birth and condition? For first of the temporalty, in our Privy Council we have the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of Suffolk, the Marquis of Exeter, the Lord Steward (when he may come), the Earl of Oxford, the Earl of Sussex, the Lord Sandys our Chamberlain, the Lord Admiral Treasurer of our House, Sir William Poulet Comptroller of our house: and of the spiritualty, the Bishop of Hereford [Edward Fox], the Bishop of Chichester [Richard Sampson], and the Bishop of Winchester [Stephen Gardiner]. Now how far be ye abused to reckon that then there were more noblemen in our Privy Council than now? But yet, though I now do declare the truth to pull you from the blindness that you were led in, yet we ensure you we would ye knew that it appertaineth nothing to any of our subjects to appoint us our Council ne we will take it so at your hands. Wherefore henceforth remember better the duties of subjects to your King and sovereign lord, and meddle no more of those nor such-like things as ye have nothing to do in.
To the fourth; where ye the commons do name certain of our Council to be subverters both of God’s law and the laws of this realm; we do take and repute them as just and true executors both of God’s laws and ours as far as their commissions under us do extend. And if any of our subjects can duly prove the contrary, we shall proceed against them and all other offenders therein according to justice, as to our estate and dignity royal doth appertain. And in case it be but a false and untrue report (as we verily think it is), then it were as meet and standeth as well with justice that they should have the self same punishment which wrongfully hath objected this to them, that they should have had if they deserved it. And one thing amongst others maketh me think that this slander should be untrue; because it proceedeth from that place which is both so far distant from where they inhabit, and also from those people which never heard them preach nor yet knoweth any part of their conversation. Wherefore we exhort you our commons to be no more so light of credit, neither of ill things spoken of your King and sovereign, nor yet of any of his prelates and councillors; but to think that your King, having so long reigned over you, hath as good discretion to elect and choose his councillors as those (whosoever they be) that hath put this in your heads.
Here, in this final point, which ye our commons of Yorkshire do desire and also in the matter of the whole, we verily think that the rest of our whole commons (whereof ye be in manner but an handful) will greatly disdain and not bear it that ye take upon you to set order both to them and us, your both sovereign; and that (though ye be rebels) ye would make them as bearers and partakers of your mischief; willing them to take pardon for insurrections which verily I think and doubt not they never minded; but like true subjects to the contrary hath, both with heart and deed, been ready at our call to defend both us and themself.
And now for our part; as to your demands, We let you wit that pardon of such things as ye demand lieth only in the will and pleasure of the prince; but it seemeth by your lewd proclamations and safeconducts that there be amongst you which take upon them both the King’s and councillor’s parts, which neither yet by us nor by consent of the realm hath been admitted to any such room. What arrogancy then is in those wretches (being also of none experience) to presume to raise you our subjects without commission or authority, yea, and against us, under a cloaked colour of your wealth and in our name; and as the success will declare, (we being no more merciful than ye yet hitherto deserve) to your utter confusions? Wherefore we let you wit, ye our subjects of Yorkshire, that were it not that our princely heart cannot reckon this your shameful insurrection and unnatural rebellion to be done of malice or rancour, but rather by a lightness given in a manner by a naughty nature to a commonalty and a wondrous sudden surreption of gentlemen; we must needs have executed another manner of punishment than (ye humbly knowledging your fault and submitting yourselves to our mercy) we intend to do. And to the intent that ye shall all know that our princely heart rather embraceth (of his own disposition) pity and compassion of his offending subjects than will to be revenged of their naughty deeds; we are contented, if we may see and perceive in you all a sorrowfulness for your offences and will henceforth to do no more so, nor to believe so lewd and naughty tales or reports of your most kind and loving prince and his Council, to grant unto you all our letters patent of pardon for this rebellion; so that ye will deliver unto us ten such of the ringleaders and provokers of you in this rebellion, as we shall assign to you and appoint. Now note the benignity of your prince. Now note how easily ye may have pardon, both gentlemen and other if ye list. Now note how effusion of blood may be eschewed. Now note, what this little while of your rebellion hath hindered yourselves and country. Now learn by a little lack to eschew a worse. Now learn, by this small warning, to keep you true men. Thus I, as your head, pray for you my members, that God may light you with his Grace to knowledge and declare yourselves our true subjects henceforth, and to give more credence to these our benign persuasions than to the perverse instigations of maliciously disposed persons.”[1280]
Although the tone of this document was on the whole milder than that of the reply to the Lincolnshire rebels, it must have caused dismay to Norfolk, who knew that the Pilgrims would regard it as a declaration of war. It contained no answer to any of their grievances, except the statement that the King was entirely right, and they were entirely wrong. The only hint of conciliation was the promise that if any members of the Council could be proved to be subverters of the laws, they should be punished, and this was qualified by the King’s certainty that no one could prove anything of the sort. Even the promised pardon was not general. Norfolk must have learnt enough of the Pilgrims’ feelings to know that they would never accept this answer, and they were in a position to attack Suffolk almost as soon as it was received, for their musters were made on the spot, while the King’s troops had to be conveyed there from a distance. Yet for the moment there seemed to be no way in which the answer might be altered. The Council did not dare openly to criticise the King’s own composition, and on the morning of Sunday 5 November, Bowes and Ellerker set out from Windsor with the King’s reply, which they themselves do not seem to have read. But at noon a message was sent to Cromwell commanding him to stop them until the King had consulted his Council again[1281]. Such news had been received from the north that Fitzwilliam wrote that the ambassadors must be stopped in London. If they had started, a post must be sent after them[1282].
The particular report which had just arrived has not been preserved, but its contents at last convinced the King that the time was not yet ripe for his answer. He must temporise, not threaten. The same news which made him realise this gave him an excuse for delay. It was possible to declare that the Pilgrims had broken the truce, and that the King therefore refused to negotiate with them[1283]. A message which Aske had sent to Sir Marmaduke Constable was one of these alleged breaches[1284]. It was also said that Leonard Beckwith had been attacked. He was a receiver of the suppressed abbeys’ goods and therefore very unpopular. His house was plundered by William Acclom and sixty commons, and his mother put in such fear that she was ill for the next seven months; but this had happened before the truce[1285]. The King also complained that Aske had sent letters into Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire[1286]. These were the letters which announced the truce and ordered the rebels to disband. On these pretexts Bowes and Ellerker were detained and the King embarked on a new policy.
It must be placed to the credit of Henry’s honesty, if not of his generalship, that he was unwilling to drop force and resort to treachery, as Norfolk advised. From the time of the first outbreak in Lincolnshire the King had been urging his lieutenants to proceed to extremities. He frequently ordered them to give battle, and he seems to have felt no doubt as to the result. It was not by his will that the outbreak of hostilities had been delayed so long. The revolt might have been finally crushed by one decisive blow, but on the other hand it was even more likely that the rebels would have been victorious, and that the battle which the King desired would have been the opening of a civil war, the end of which no man could foresee. This may seem too confident a statement to base on the reports of Norfolk, as their gloomy tone was partly due to sympathy with the rebels, but there is positive evidence of the weakness of the royal troops, apart from Norfolk’s letters. In the first place, the royal forces were never concentrated at one place; they straggled north in scattered contingents, which could easily have been cut off in detail. In the second place, the King’s soldiers did not receive regular and sufficient pay. In the third place, the Duke of Suffolk, whose loyalty was unquestioned, was as unwilling as Norfolk to risk a battle. Jealousy ran so high among Henry’s nobles that if Suffolk could safely have made a great show of activity, in contrast to Norfolk’s hesitation, or could have sent very cheerful reports, in contrast to Norfolk’s desperate letters, there can be no doubt that he would have done so, and won the King’s favour. Only the gravity of the situation can have forced him to support Norfolk.
These facts were obvious to Henry when he was cool enough to observe them, and accordingly his blustering was temporarily suspended. He was still absolutely determined that he would make no concessions to the Pilgrims, but he was forced to resort to temporising and treachery, as it was impossible for the moment to compel them to submit to his will. Accordingly he laid his plans anew.
His first object was to delay the northern messengers. All waste of time was time gained. Hot blood would cool, and anger die down, men would settle into their ordinary ways, and hopeful spirits would grow despondent, if time was given them to realise the dangers and difficulties of civil war. The return of Bowes and Ellerker would be watched for less and less eagerly every day they tarried, and the King’s answer, however unfavourable, might find the people readier to submit than to rise again. The King’s second line of attack was directed against the very citadel of the Pilgrims’ position—the loyalty of their leaders. Letters of thanks were sent to all the gentlemen of the north who had taken the King’s side, and they were encouraged to return to their own homes, or remain there as the case might be, in order that they might report the arrangements and movements of the Pilgrims, and use their influence with the neighbouring gentlemen, often friends and relatives, to bring them over to the King[1287]. Promises of pardon and reward, hints at grants of land, perhaps belonging to the very monasteries they had risen to defend, perhaps the property of men like Darcy and Constable who would not escape unattainted, doubtless had the desired effect on some of the gentlemen[1288]. The King might well anticipate that these methods would bring such disunion into the Pilgrims’ councils that any concerted action would be rendered impossible and isolated outbreaks would be the worst that need be feared.
The Pilgrims from the first did their utmost to guard against the King’s assault on their weak places. They strove to keep the gentlemen banded together by frequent councils and constant communication. With the commons their task was doubly difficult. They must keep unruly members from spoils and other offences against the truce, and at the same time encourage the fervent and patriotic spirit which was the mainstay of their venture. Henry issued sermons and exhortations,—the Pilgrims replied with poems. John Hallam returned home to Watton after the disbanding at Pontefract, and brought with him “certain rhymes made against my lord privy seal, my lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Augmentations and divers bishops of the new learning which rhymes had been sung abroad by minstrels.”[1289] He showed them to Friar John Pickering, one of the Friars Preachers, who had taken refuge at the Priory of Bridlington[1290]. Pickering was inspired to write something better than these clumsy verses to encourage the Pilgrims in the good cause. With this intention he composed a long poem in the elaborate Latin style which seems to have been the fashion then in Yorkshire. He “made the said rhyme by rhyme that the hearers might better bear it away, but not that it might be sung by minstrels” and he himself showed it only to a few friends, who all praised it. Nevertheless it soon spread abroad and “was in every man’s mouth about Bridlington and Scarborough.” It is difficult to understand how anyone could sing the verses, for they have none of the rugged charm of the Pilgrims’ marching song. They are long-winded, involved, and interspersed with scraps of Latin. The Pilgrims are compared first to the Maccabees, afterwards to Mordecai, with Cromwell in the character of Hamon:
The gist of the poem is an exhortation to be loyal to the King, but to fight to the death against Cromwell[1291].
Thus both parties were working quietly and effectively to improve their position, and in consequence were constantly accusing each other of breaches of the truce. It cannot be denied that, however honest their intentions, the first appointment at Doncaster was not well kept on either side. The diplomacy of the King and the wildness of the commons—to say nothing of mutual suspicion—were against it. Considering all the circumstances it was perhaps as strictly observed as engagements of the kind ever are.
The presence of Suffolk in Lincolnshire made it absolutely necessary for the Pilgrims to secure their borders. Norfolk, of course, had no power to promise the dispersal of Suffolk’s army, even if the rebels demanded anything so unreasonable; but he had undertaken that the King’s Lieutenant in Lincolnshire should observe the truce and threaten no invasion of Yorkshire[1292]. The Pilgrims had stipulated that none of the prisoners at Lincoln should suffer execution till a final settlement had been reached, which must have been all they could do at the time for their unlucky fellows[1293]. But Suffolk, instead of keeping all his host round Lincoln, where he himself lay, sent garrisons to Grimsby, Barton and other towns on Trent and Humber[1294]. These places were fortified, the river traffic was controlled by their commanders and every effort was made to collect the boats on their own side. Hull, the most important citadel on the north of Humber, was known to favour the King, partly because of Beverley’s devotion to the Pilgrims. Further east, Sir Brian Hastings lay at Hatfield with his tenants and servants about five hundred strong, ready to stand to arms at a word[1295]. Even at Wakefield, right in the rebels’ country, Sir Henry Saville was bullying and coaxing his neighbours to join the King[1296]. These formed the King’s first line, pushed right to the frontiers of the rebels. His second was the line of the Trent. The castles at Newark and Nottingham were being garrisoned and re-fortified. Shrewsbury was at his Derbyshire seat, Wingfield, ready to muster all the country at the first warning from the north, and to hold the bridges at Derby and Burton-on-Trent[1297]. Nor must it be forgotten that the Pilgrims had also an enemy at their flank. The Earl of Derby had orders to be on the alert. He kept nightly watch along the Pilgrims’ borders and ascertained by constant musters the available strength of Lancashire and Cheshire[1298].
Such were the King’s general defences, the details of which will appear presently, and it remained for the Pilgrims to make themselves equally secure. The defence of the Trent was not fully organised until the middle of November, but the first line was prepared at the beginning of the truce, and Hull was in some danger of falling by a sudden attack.
The Pilgrims’ strongest line of defence was along the Humber, Ouse and Aire, and such were its advantages, particularly in the way of scarcity of bridges, that it could be made almost impassable, if properly garrisoned with determined troops. But the commons had risen and joined them through all the country south as far as the Don, Marshland, and the Isle of Axholme, which lay between the Don and the Trent. In order to keep this part of the country, they would be obliged to hold the line of the Trent. The result of this was that the district south of the Ouse became debatable ground, where each party was constantly complaining of breaches of the truce.
The first business of the rebel leaders was to stay the “wild” men of the North Riding. It may be conjectured that the expected arrival of these rough allies had something to do with the making of the truce, for all the well-to-do Pilgrims were very shy of the commons who were more bent on social reform than on religious conservatism. Although Darcy and the captains were able to disband the forces that were at Pontefract and Doncaster[1299], it was not to be expected that the remote districts could be quieted at once. The truce was not acknowledged in Cumberland until 3 November, as has been described, and then only in part and with great reluctance[1300]. The monks of Furness were giving money to their tenants and encouraging them to attend the musters on Hallowmas Eve, 31 October[1301]. On his return from Jervaux to Richmond John Dakyn was obliged to keep the freest hospitality he could, and distributed seven nobles among his parishioners, that they might not rob him as they had done some of the neighbouring clergy[1302].
As time went on the unrest became more marked, but for the moment there was an uneasy lull, and the leaders of the Pilgrimage began to strengthen their defences. Orders were given on the 30th that beacons should be laid and that nightly watch should be kept in the church towers of the East Riding, where some attempt might be made from Lincolnshire[1303]. Aske spent the night of Sunday 29 October in York, declaring the order and staying the country. Next day, Monday 30 October, he turned his attention to the delicate problem of the Earl of Northumberland’s position, and rode to Wressell Castle. On the way he heard that Sir Marmaduke Constable, who had been in hiding, had returned home at the news of the truce, and that the commons were threatening to plunder his house if he would not take the oath. Aske wrote to Sir Marmaduke advising him to come to Wressell for protection, but he fled to Lincolnshire[1304]. This was the message of which the King complained on 5 November.
The unfortunate Earl of Northumberland, still lying ill at Wressell Castle, was now besieged by most unwelcome visitors. First came Aske, “to have agreed him and his brother Sir Thomas Percy.” The Earl refused to have anything whatever to do with his brothers, but towards Aske his attitude was on the whole friendly. The commons at Snaith had seized two coffers of the Earl’s clothes, which had been sent from London. Aske saved them from destruction and made a bill of the contents, “a gown and doublet of crimson satin and the rest of small value.” He had sent word to the Earl that he could have his coffers on sending for them, but he made Aske a present of them, and now affirmed that if there had been more Aske should have had it for saving his life from the commons[1305].
Failing in his principal object that day, Aske seems to have returned to York for the night to take counsel with Sir Thomas. Next day, Tuesday 31 October, Hallowmas Eve, they dined together at St Mary’s Abbey, York, and then received news of the arrival of William Stapleton, who sent word to Aske that he was about to ride to Wressell to pay his duty to the Earl his master, and would be glad to be allowed to ride in Aske’s company. But Aske and Sir Thomas Percy set off without him, and when Stapleton reached the Castle Aske was with the Earl, trying in vain to persuade him to make Sir Thomas lieutenant of one March and Sir Ingram of the other. Afterwards Stapleton himself visited the Earl, whom he found in bed “weeping, ever wishing himself out of the world, which the said William was sore to see.” That night Sir Thomas, Aske and Stapleton all slept at Wressell.
Next day, Wednesday 1 November, Aske went to the Earl again, and they came to terms. The Earl, under compulsion, consented to what Aske and the lords had resolved upon, but he absolutely refused to make any concessions to his brothers, or even to see Sir Thomas. It may be imagined that he would not find it easy to face the brother whom he had disinherited. Stapleton added his persuasions to those of Aske. He really feared for the Earl’s life, as he had heard the commons say in the field, “Strike off the head of the Earl and make Sir Thomas earl,” and Sir Thomas Hilton had exclaimed, “He is now crept into a corner and dare not show himself, he hath made a many of knaves gentlemen to whom he has disposed much of his living and all now to do nought himself.” The Earl’s obstinacy made Stapleton half-angry, but nothing could move him to see his brother. The Earl was very earnest on behalf of the King and Cromwell against the commons, and when Stapleton warned him that he was actually in danger he only replied that “he cared not, he could die but once, let them strike off his head and rid him of much pain.” The upshot was that the Earl went to York, leaving Wressell in Aske’s hands. Aske set out for Hull, Sir Thomas went to Seamer, and Stapleton went home[1306].
Northumberland found no peace at York, for there he was visited by Sir Ingram Percy, who had come up to demand seven hundred marks salary as vice-warden of the East Marches and one hundred marks for the lieutenancy. His brother consented to see him, but was shocked by the language he used about Cromwell, “wishing him, being of the King’s most honourable Council, to be hanged as they and he might look unto; and if he were there present, as he wished to God he were, he would put his sword in his belly.”[1307] Northumberland promptly deprived him of the offices which he had obtained by his trick[1308], and appointed Robert Lord Ogle vice-warden, and Sir Roger Grey and Sir John Widdrington lieutenants, all three being of the Carnaby faction[1309]. After this both Sir Thomas and Sir Ingram set out for the north.
On or about Sunday 5 November, Shrewsbury sent his chaplain John Moreton to discover the Earl’s state, and to try to obtain payment of her allowance to his daughter the Countess, as she was now living with him. The messenger went to Wressell, and was there taken by Aske’s men, who were holding the castle[1310]. On 10 November Aske visited the Earl again at Selby[1311]. Now that his brothers were gone he was more tractable, and made over to Aske his castle of Wressell and his tenants, for so long as Aske should lie in garrison there, and also his “spice plate” which was at Watton Priory[1312]. By this formal deed he obtained power to remove his “evidences” from the castle, and as he was very anxious about them, he sent two servants, who brought them away at midnight[1313].
Thus the Pilgrims received Wressell Castle, but before the negotiation was completed Aske had been busy in a great many other places. After his interview with Northumberland he rode to Watton, to arrange the affairs of Watton Priory. The prior, a creature of Cromwell’s, had fled south with all the money he could lay hands on, leaving “three or four score brethren and sisters of the same house without forty shillings to succour them.” They wished to elect a new prior, but Aske persuaded them to accept the sub-prior as the defaulter’s deputy. This affair of the Prior of Watton should not be overlooked, for it had a part in bringing about the final tragedy. Next day Thursday 2 November Aske went on to Hull[1314].
The Duke of Suffolk had caused considerable alarm to the Pilgrims by occupying Grimsby and the neighbouring country[1315] in force as soon as the truce was made. They considered that this was “contrary to the appointment,”[1316] although of course the agreement did not include Suffolk. Aske made Sir Robert Constable governor of Hull, and under his directions the walls were put in a state of defence and a garrison of two hundred soldiers was maintained there[1317]. Shipping was also prepared, which alarmed the royalists in their turn. They thought that the rebels’ object must be either to escape by sea, or to send for powder and ordnance from abroad, and watch was kept to prevent communications with Flanders; but as a matter of fact the preparations were made partly in fear of an attack on Hull by sea, and partly to intercept any succour which might be sent to Scarborough or Berwick[1318].
The Pilgrims employed various methods to obtain the money needed for their garrisons. Sir Robert Constable paid most of the expenses of Hull; he “borrowed” the money, perhaps rather vigorously, from John Lambart, who tried unsuccessfully to recover £165. 8s. 3d. from Sir Robert’s brother Sir William Constable[1319]. Lambart had however received sufficient security from Sir Robert[1320]. Dr Holdsworth the vicar of Halifax had fled to his patron Sir Henry Saville. His goods were confiscated and £10 of the money went to the defence of Hull[1321]. The collector of customs attempted to fly to the King with three hundred marks in his possession, but Sir Robert Constable seized him and swore that that money should be spent first[1322]. The lead of Marton Priory, which had already been removed from the building, was seized by the rebels and assigned to Edmund (?) Copendale for sale. He paid over to Aske for it in all £9. 13s. 4d.[1323] Aske also obtained on 10 November the Earl of Northumberland’s sign manual to use his “spice plate” lying at Watton Priory, for the purposes of the rebellion. The Prior of Ellerton was now in charge of the house during the absence of the Prior of Watton[1324], and on the first summons refused to give the plate up. Aske wrote again severely, saying that “it is pity to do anything for that house that so unkindly orders me, who have done more for religion than they can ever deserve,” and threatened that if he complained of the prior’s conduct to the commons the house would be plundered[1325]. Alarmed by this, the prior took the plate to Aske himself, and the convent of Watton received Aske’s thanks four days later[1326]. Some money may have been obtained by plundering the houses of those who had fled to the King, but this was a very uncertain source of revenue, as the plunder was usually divided among the spoilers who carried out the work. Finally gifts were received from well-wishers, particularly from the monasteries[1327].
In this connection may be mentioned the curious story of Harry Osborne of Gloucester. He was serving with his father in the King’s army under Sir Charles Trowen, and obtained leave “to go among the northern host to know the fashion of them.” When he came back he seems to have drawn freely upon his imagination; parts of his story are obviously untrue, and the rest is very suspicious. He asserted in the first place that Lord Stafford had joined the rebels with one thousand men[1328]. This was not true, but it seems to have been widely rumoured. Wilfred Holme thus enumerated the allies on whom the rebels depended:
Speed gives a list of the lords who were present at the second appointment at Doncaster, among whom is Lord Streffre, which may stand for Lord Stafford. All the names in this list are wildly misprinted, e.g. Romemer for Bulmer and Clayer for Ellerker[1330]. Osborne also said that “Lady Rysse,” i.e. Katherine Howard widow of Rice (Richard) ap Griffith had joined them with three thousand men and had brought half a cartload of plate, which was being coined for their use. Osborne produced a groat which he asserted to be of their coinage, “and it is a fay (true?) king Harry groat.” This story had an air of probability, for Richard ap Griffith had been executed for treason in 1531, and his widow might very well sympathise with the rebels[1331]. Also they would have no difficulty in coining money, as there were mints at York and Durham, and Hastings reported on 8 November that the rebels had made posts from Hull by Templehurst, York and Durham to Newcastle “to prepare new money.”[1332] These posts are mentioned again on 13 November[1333]. But as nothing more is ever heard of “Lady Rysse” and her groats they may have only existed in the vigorous imagination of Harry Osborne.
Darcy depended for money on a cess regularly levied on the parishes. He set to work to collect one as soon as the truce was proclaimed, and it is a sign of the commons’ earnestness that they assisted in gathering it. Sir Henry Saville seized the collectors at Dewsbury and forced them to give up the money under pain of hanging as traitors, conduct which caused much indignation among the Pilgrims[1334].
Meanwhile Aske left Hull for Wressell Castle, which he made his headquarters, before Monday 6 November[1335]. On that day Suffolk wrote to the Mayor of Hull requiring him to deliver up Antony Curtis, William his servant, Robert Horncliff and Christopher Blaunde, who were lying in prison in the town. The mayor and Sir Robert Constable refused to give them up without a special order from the grand captain, who cannot therefore have been in Hull that day[1336]. Curtis and Horncliff were two of the messengers who had been sent by the Lincolnshire rebels to Beverley. They had been cast into prison as liars on bringing news of the failure of Lincolnshire[1337]. When this proved true they must have been detained in revenge for the betrayal of Woodmancy who seems to have been given up to Suffolk by the Lincolnshire men; for Morland, on flying to Yorkshire, was driven out of Beverley because the magistrates said, “Ye are worthy to have no favour here, nor ye may not tarry here, for our messenger called Woodmancy, whom we sent into Lincolnshire, hath been ill-entreated with you there and was cast into prison[1338].” On Tuesday 7 November Suffolk sent the Mayor’s refusal to the King, with the incorrect assertion that it came from Aske[1339]. On or before Sunday 12 November, Horncliff and Curtis “brake the prison” and threw themselves on the mercy of Sir Anthony Browne[1340] at Barton[1341]. He sent them on to Suffolk at Lincoln, when they found that they had escaped out of the frying-pan into the fire[1342]. A spy of Sir Francis Brian’s reported that these two were said to have been “the beginners of the mischief” and that Aske himself had told him that they “were the first that sware him in Lincolnshire,” and afterwards raised Yorkshire[1343]. After this information they were practically dead men, and Suffolk at once petitioned the King that their property might be bestowed on his own kinsmen[1344]. Yet even Suffolk seems to have realised that the accusation was probably false, for Aske always said, in authentic documents, that Hudswell first gave him the oath[1345]. Nevertheless, Suffolk considered the story good enough to hang Curtis, and he repeated it to him. Curtis was so indignant at the accusation that he offered to go and kill Aske, although he was his kinsman. Suffolk had the assassination of Aske a good deal at heart just then (20 November), but he seems to have suspected that Curtis’ wrath was merely an excuse for escaping back to the Pilgrims. At any rate he did not accept the offer, though he reported it to the King. He also sent up Curtis’ confession, but unfortunately it has not been preserved[1346].
Such was the position at the seat of war from Friday 27 October until Sunday 5 November. Although Henry had resolved to suspend his answer to the Pilgrims’ petition, Bowes and Ellerker were allowed to send a letter to Pontefract by their servants. They described the progress of their embassy and gave the reason for the delay in their return. Several copies of this letter were sent for distribution among the northern gentlemen, in order to test their temper towards the King. The servants set out from Windsor for the north on Tuesday 7 November[1347]. At the same time the King was preparing a swifter means of ending his difficulty.
On Tuesday the Duke of Norfolk sent for Percival Cresswell, a servant of Lord Hussey, and ordered him to prepare to ride north. Next day Hussey directed Cresswell to write in his (Hussey’s) name a certain letter to Lord Darcy and to show it to the Council. After the Council had approved of the letter Lord Hussey signed it, and Cresswell took it back to Norfolk and the Bishop of Hereford. They sealed it up and gave it to him with another letter from Norfolk to Darcy and also certain instructions by word of mouth. His further orders were to ride post after the servants of Bowes and Ellerker, and to pass through the rebels with them: if he did not do this he must obtain a safeconduct, for on no account must the letters be taken by the commons.
Cresswell reached Doncaster before the servants and sent to Darcy for a safeconduct, but before it came the other messengers arrived, and they all went on towards Templehurst. One of Lord Darcy’s servants met them and they arrived there on Friday 10 November. Darcy was in the garden with about half-a-dozen of the commons and his servants. Cresswell paid his respects to him, saying aloud that he trusted all should be well, and secretly that he brought a private message from Norfolk and the King. Darcy led him into the house, and on the way Cresswell managed to pass the letters into his hands unobserved. Darcy went into an inner room to read them, leaving Cresswell among the commons in an outer chamber. They began to abuse Cromwell, and asked Cresswell whether he had been dismissed from the King’s Council. Cresswell answered that he had not seen Cromwell at court for the last two days, and that the principal noblemen about the King were Norfolk, Oxford, Sussex, Fitzwilliam, Paulet, and Kingston. Thereupon the commons exclaimed, “God save the King and them all! for as long as such noblemen of the true noble blood may reign and rule about the King all shall be well.” They discussed the question of Cromwell’s dismissal a little longer, and then told Cresswell that whatever answer Darcy and the gentlemen might make, “If ye speak with the King’s highness ye shall show him, or else ye shall show my lord’s Grace your master and other the foresaid true noblemen of the Council, that if the King’s Grace do not send and grant unto us our petitions, which we sent unto his Highness by the Duke’s Grace your master, whatsoever letter, bill or pardon shall be sent on to us we will not accept or receive the same, but send it to his Highness again.” Cresswell remonstrated with them, but they replied, “if ye be a true man ye will report the same, for that thing that moves us to this is the faith we bear unto God, to the King’s person, and all his true noble blood and the commonwealth.”[1348]
Meanwhile Darcy had read the letters and had sent a messenger to summon Aske[1349], who was at Selby that day[1350]. The letter to Darcy from Norfolk was dated 6 November. It informed him that the King had written answers to the articles “which be of such sort that in mine opinion there is nothing to be amended therein.” Norfolk went on to complain of the breaches of the truce. He then dropped into a confidential vein,—people were saying unpleasant things about Darcy,—it was whispered that he might have defended Pontefract longer,—that he was in an agreement with Aske. Norfolk defended him as well as he could, and always maintained, like a true friend, that Darcy had been constrained by force; but what a splendid disproof of all these slanders it would be if Darcy should capture Aske and send him up to Windsor “dead or alive, but alive if possible, which will extinct the ill bruit and raise you in the favour of his Highness.”[1351] Hussey’s letter was dated 7 November and was much shorter. He had been in great trouble and danger, he said, partly because he was accused of being Darcy’s confederate. The Duke of Norfolk had delivered him, and now said that he would also befriend Darcy if he would send up Aske “quick or dead.” Hussey therefore begged him to accomplish the King’s pleasure[1352].
After reading these letters, Darcy sent for Cresswell. There were several other gentlemen in the room, who were not very willing that Darcy should speak to the messenger apart, but he promised to tell them all that passed. Then he bade Cresswell declare his credence. Cresswell replied that it was the same as the letters, in that Darcy would win the King’s confidence and a great reward if he sent up Aske. Darcy’s answer is rather refreshing reading: “I cannot do it in no wise, for I have made promise to the contrary, and my coat was never hitherto stained with any such blot. And my lord’s Grace your master knoweth well enough what a nobleman’s promise is, and therefore I think that this thing cometh not of his Grace’s device, nor of none other nobleman, and if I might have two dukedoms for my labour I would not consent to have such a spot in my coat.” Darcy evidently suspected that Norfolk’s message was inspired by Cromwell, as Hussey’s letter undoubtedly had been. He did not realise what a nobleman “of the true noble blood” was capable of doing. Cresswell had nothing to say in reply, and they all went to dinner. During the meal Aske arrived, and after dinner the captains of the Pilgrimage held a council. On Saturday 11 November, after mass, Darcy sent for Cresswell, and bade him tell the King that Darcy was now doing him better service than he had ever done. As for Pontefract Castle, he called the Archbishop and Archdeacon Magnus to witness that there was neither powder, ordnance nor artillery in it, that the King sent no reply to his letters, and that he had used all means to defend it while he could. He begged the King to excuse him if he and the other gentlemen “spake somewhat largely” against Cromwell, as that pleased the commons best. To Hussey, Darcy sent no letter, but he bade Cresswell to “have him recommended to him,” and to say that he was sorry for his trouble[1353].
On Saturday at six o’clock in the evening Cresswell set out for Windsor with letters from Darcy to Norfolk and to the ambassadors, and Aske’s explanation of the alleged breaches of the truce. The captain stated that he wrote to Sir Marmaduke Constable in Lancashire and Sir Thomas Wharton in Westmorland only for their own protection. His other letters were to stay the country. As for spoils, if there had been any since the truce he was willing to make restitution, but he doubted if they could be proved[1354]. Darcy’s letters are highly characteristic. To Bowes and Ellerker he wrote that their delay was a far greater violation of the agreement than anything that had happened in the north, and that their letter was “taken but for a persuasion.” If they would bring back the King’s answer themselves, it would do more good than twenty letters[1355]. To Norfolk he expressed his joy that the King had been graciously pleased to answer the articles in person. He denied that the truce had been broken; on the contrary, he and the other gentlemen had stayed Lancashire, Cumberland and Westmorland, although those counties were not included in the appointment at Doncaster, because it was not then known that they had risen. As for his surrender of Pontefract, he had declared the whole circumstances to Cresswell, and again protested his loyalty and his ill-treatment. Coming to the most important part of the letter, the suggested capture of Aske, Darcy was as emphatic as he had been to Cresswell. He was ready to serve the King as a scullion “without a penny rent from his lands” but “alas, my good lord that ever ye being a man of so much honour and great experience should advise or choose me a man to be of any such sort or fashion to betray or disserve any living man, Frenchman, Scot, yea, or a Turk; of my faith, to get and win to me and mine heirs four of the best duke’s lands in France, or to be king there, I would not do it to no living person.” Finally he declared “roundly and truly” that there would be no satisfactory “stay” until Bowes and Ellerker were sent back with the King’s full answer, and in particular the promise of a free parliament and a full pardon, for their letters were looked upon as mere persuasions[1356]. In writing this letter Darcy, as perhaps he knew, signed his own death warrant. No past service, no future pardon, could protect a man who so boldly exalted his own honour above the King’s pleasure.
After making his reply, Aske returned to Wressell Castle and sent out a summons to all the gentlemen and leaders of the Pilgrimage to attend a general council at York on Tuesday 21 November[1357]. It was hoped that the messengers would have returned from London by that time; if they had not, their letter would be shown and further steps would have to be taken to bring the King to terms[1358]. No sooner had Aske and Darcy disposed of one set of accusations than another sprang up. On Wednesday 8 November, the day that Cresswell left London, Sir Brian Hastings wrote to tell Suffolk of a rumour that Darcy was about to march on Doncaster, while Aske and Constable would transport the men of the East Riding, Howden and Marshland by water to Gainsborough and Stockwith, and both hosts would meet at Lincoln, where they intended to capture the weapons collected there by Suffolk[1359]. On the same day Suffolk sent a force from Lincoln to occupy Newark, led by Richard Cromwell, Sir John Russell and Sir Francis Brian[1360]. This however was not in consequence of Hastings’ report, for on Thursday 9 November Hastings received two letters from Suffolk asking for news of the rebels. Hastings wrote back the same day, referring to his earlier letter. He mentioned the arrival of Percival Cresswell at Doncaster, and declared that if he had two guns and ordnance he could keep the bridges there with his own men. He did not think that the occupation of Newark was necessary, but there was danger in north Lincolnshire. The rest of the letter was taken up with his private grievances against Sir Arthur Darcy[1361]. Meanwhile he was furthering the King’s cause in another way by acting as go-between from the Earl of Shrewsbury to Sir George Darcy[1362]. Lord Darcy’s sons had no sympathy with their father’s views. Sir George had joined the commons only on compulsion, and was now eager to obtain a pardon and make his peace with the King.
Henry seems to have calculated a good deal on the effect that the letters sent by Cresswell would have. If Darcy should kill or capture Aske, there would certainly be another rising; leaderless and disorganised by treachery, it would be easily suppressed. The King therefore laid plans to deal with the situation which he hoped to produce. Shrewsbury’s son Lord Talbot returned from court to Wingfield on Thursday 9 November, bearing instructions that if the commons rose again, Shrewsbury must advance to Derby and there hold the bridges. The old Earl seems to have been quite tired of the whole business. He wrote back that the water at Derby and the Trent four miles away at Burton-on-Trent could not be held, there were so many fords and bridges, and it would take ten thousand men or more to hold the Trent between Newark and Burton. The rest of his letter contained better news for the King; he mentioned the rumour that Darcy would seize Doncaster, which gave an excuse for further delay of the messengers, and enclosed a letter, which if revealed would endanger the life of the sender,—probably one from Sir George Darcy[1363]. At the same time Shrewsbury wrote to Cromwell begging to be excused from the chief command on account of his age and feebleness[1364]. Of course the King would not excuse Shrewsbury[1365]; his age, his great reputation, and his well-known devotion to the Church of Rome made him too valuable to be spared.
Letters were sent on the 9th and 10th to the Earl of Derby and the gentlemen of Cheshire and Lancashire, warning them to be ready to join Shrewsbury at an hour’s notice[1366]. At the same time orders were sent to the Earl of Rutland to occupy Nottingham, and he wrote to the King that he had done so on Friday 10 November. His report was little more encouraging than Shrewsbury’s. He had provisioned the castle and inspected the river, but there were four bridges and nine fords. It would require a great force to defend the castle and so much of the river, but lying there was very chargeable. He had little money of his own, as his rents from Yorkshire were stopped, and of the £500 that Norfolk had sent him only £300 remained. The rest had been spent on bringing up gunners, on posts and on fortifying the fords at Doncaster. Moreover he had “no great experience in the war” and begged that some expert man might be sent to help him[1367].
The news of these movements on the part of the royal troops shortly reached the headquarters of the rebels. Roger Ratcliff was with Rutland at Nottingham on Thursday 9 November. He was sent with letters from Rutland to Derby, and returned with fresh letters from Derby to Fitzwilliam, but as he passed through Wakefield he was captured by Grice, who set him naked in the stocks and read his letters. News of this reached Nottingham and was sent on Saturday 11 November in a letter to one of Derby’s servants, which was also intercepted[1368].
The King now issued the proclamation and reply to the rebels which he had drawn up as early as 2 November before seeing their articles[1369]. This is the most probable explanation of a letter from the Council dated 11 November, which notified that the King had pardoned all the rebels of Yorkshire except ten, and that the proclamation of this, with the King’s answer to the rebels’ demands, was to be read in all market-towns[1370]. Although the date of this letter is Saturday 11 November, it must really have been issued earlier, for it was received that day at Nottingham[1371], and what is more extraordinary at Skipton, where Christopher Aske read it in Skipton market-place, to the great indignation of the commons[1372].
All these proceedings on the King’s part show that he believed the rising in Yorkshire to have collapsed as that in Lincolnshire had done. He expected that by this time most of the commons would have gone quietly home again and that the gentlemen would be ready and anxious to make their peace. Only a few of the wilder spirits were still holding out, and they could easily be dealt with, particularly if Darcy, as he expected, captured or killed Aske. By acting on these assumptions Henry nearly precipitated an outbreak. The commons were by no means pacified; on the contrary they were with difficulty induced by the gentlemen to observe the truce. The gentlemen realised that it was too late for submission and that their only chance of safety lay in treating with the King on equal terms. Finally Darcy indignantly rejected the suggestion that he should betray Aske. Henry’s manœuvres set the whole of the north simmering with irritation. Suffolk and the royal generals were very much offended that messengers had been sent direct to the rebels, instead of communicating first with themselves[1373]. Rutland, Shrewsbury and Derby were grumbling at being ordered to carry out expensive operations without money[1374]. Newark proved as difficult to defend as Nottingham and Derby[1375]. Among the rebels the utmost suspicion was aroused by the delay in the return of Bowes and Ellerker, by the vagueness of their letter, and by the King’s proclamation, which seemed to throw back the negotiations to the very beginning again. Darcy had his own reasons for believing that the King did not intend to come to terms, and the movements of the royal troops caused great uneasiness.
The result of all this was an alarm which took place on the night of Saturday 11 November. Men “in white coats” (the royal uniform) were observed mustering secretly in a wood near Snaith. When Darcy was informed of this he wrote to warn the honour of Pontefract[1376]. Beacons were burned and the whole countryside rose[1377]. It was said that Fitzwilliam had come “up the water to Thorne” with five thousand men, and that he and Hastings intended to capture Darcy[1378]. To Darcy this seemed the natural result of his reply to Norfolk’s letter. He threatened that if Hastings burnt his house at Snaith he would “light him with a candle to all the houses he had,” and prepared to go himself to encounter the royal troops. His servant William Talbot saw him take off his cap, saying that he set more by the King of Heaven than by twenty kings, and though he might not ride he could go where he would if he had a horse litter, and “the highest hill he could find there would he be”; they might shoot at him as much as they pleased, for he would kneel by his litter and say a prayer that would preserve both him and all his servants. Then he caught Talbot “by the head and wrestled with him and cast him down and swore by the (illegible) he waxed more cant than he was of many day before.”[1379] In short Darcy was in high spirits at the prospect of a fight at last. The alarm however was quickly appeased. Hastings declared that he had only summoned his neighbours because he heard that the rebels were going to raid his cattle, as they had done before. The same night and next day letters were despatched to Suffolk explaining the commotion and assuring him that it was pacified[1380].