On Tuesday 14 November 1536 the King decided that the Pilgrims’ ambassadors must be sent back with some sort of answer, as the reports from the north showed that delay was not producing so good an effect as he had hoped[1414].
On Thursday 16 November Sir Brian Hastings sent to Lord Darcy a complaint that the commons were killing the King’s deer[1415]. Darcy wrote back next day in very good spirits, for he had heard that Sir Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes were returning and would be at Doncaster next day[1416]. Now that they were on their way home down the road over which they had travelled with such anxious hearts three weeks before, the two northern gentlemen made all the haste they could, and seem to have reached Templehurst late on Friday 17 November[1417]. A post was despatched on their arrival to summon Aske from Wressell, but rumour had preceded it. Aske was told that Bowes and Ellerker had returned with orders to arrest him, and he wrote to Darcy to inquire into the meaning of this warning. Darcy replied with a most emphatic assurance that “neither Sir Ralph Ellerker nor Robert Bowes, my cousins, nor myself would for none earthly goods send to have you come hither but after a just and true sort.” Darcy begged Aske to come at once, as his presence was urgently required. A post must be sent to London that day, and measures must be taken for the meeting at York and other matters. Darcy advised him to bring William Babthorpe with him[1418].
The letter and credence of Bowes and Ellerker were laid before the small council of the chief captains of the Pilgrimage at Templehurst on Saturday 18 November[1419]. Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, Aske and Babthorpe were present, and there may have been others. The report of the messengers was not very satisfactory. The King’s reply to the articles, written in his own hand, was not forthcoming. There was only a verbal message, and when it was divested of Henry’s complaints about the unnatural conduct of his subjects, reproaches for breaches of the truce, and professions of clemency, all that remained was the statement that he found their articles “general, dark, and obscure,” but that he would send the Duke of Norfolk to Doncaster to make a full reply to them. The rebels were to appoint three hundred representatives to meet the Duke, and if they insisted they might have a safeconduct[1420]. Norfolk’s letter was a little more explicit, as he suggested that the meeting should take place on 29 November; he added that as a special compliment to Darcy his kinsman Fitzwilliam had been appointed to attend the meeting. As the letter was intended to be read openly, Norfolk made no allusion to the capture of Aske, and merely replied to Darcy’s remonstrance, “I have lived too long to think otherwise than truly and honestly,” which was rather a doubtful argument[1421].
Darcy was very anxious that the King’s offer should be accepted at once. He was better acquainted with Henry than the other gentlemen, and knew that what appeared at first sight vague and unsatisfactory was really an extraordinary condescension. He wanted to despatch a message of acceptance immediately[1422], but the other captains were not so well pleased and insisted on referring the letter and message, with the whole question of peace or war, to the great council which had already been summoned to meet at York[1423]. As it was to be held on Tuesday 21 November, this meant only three days delay in the answer, which did not seem an unreasonable length of time after the King had kept them waiting for three weeks. The gentlemen had begun to assemble at York as early as 15 November[1424], and all would be ready on the appointed day.
As the negotiations might come to nothing, the captains at Templehurst debated as to what they should do if the treaty fell through and war was declared. They made arrangements for garrisoning Hull, Pontefract, and other places, and discussed the difficulties of obtaining provisions and ammunition[1425]. It was decided that on the outbreak of hostilities they must divide their forces into three armies to cross the Trent at three different points, and a rendezvous was appointed on the south of the river[1426]. They considered the question of opening communications with the Emperor, who, they believed, would help them. Dr Marmaduke Walby, vicar of Kirk Deighton and prebendary of Carlisle, had come to Templehurst with Sir Robert Constable[1427]. It was resolved that he should sail for the Netherlands to ask the Regent to send money, 2000 arquebuses and 2000 horsemen, and to open communications with the Pope on behalf of the Pilgrims. Darcy said that he would inform the Imperial ambassador in London that Walby was going on this mission[1428]. Walby was selected because he knew noblemen at the Regent’s court who had formerly been ambassadors in England. He was given £20 for his expenses and went to Hull, but before he embarked Darcy sent word that he was to delay his journey; on hearing this he returned home and never took the message[1429].
The captains who had met at Templehurst seem to have remained there until it was time to go to York. Aske was at Templehurst on Sunday 19 November[1430]. That night a warning was sent to Pontefract that Sir Henry Saville had ordered all his men to muster at Rotherham on the following day. Saville knew that “all the great men” were now “forth of their business,” and it was feared that he was secretly cooperating with the royal troops to capture Wakefield or Pontefract, possibly even Templehurst and the captains there[1431]. This news was sent on from Pontefract to Wakefield, where the energetic Thomas Grice seized Sir Henry Saville’s men before they could set out, and compelled Brian Bradford and others to take the Pilgrims’ oath before witnesses[1432].
Shrewsbury was told on 19 November that Thomas Grice was harassing Sir Henry’s loyal tenants so that they were forced to fly to Rotherham and elsewhere[1433]. On this report Shrewsbury wrote to Darcy to complain of his steward’s conduct, and Darcy, after receiving Grice’s explanation, wrote back to ask Shrewsbury to keep Sir Henry Saville in order[1434]. It is possible that this was an actual attempt to capture the leaders of the Pilgrimage when they were all together at Templehurst. Several points suggest this explanation, as for instance the rumour which Aske heard before he came to Templehurst[1435], the fact that no excuse for Sir Henry Saville’s conduct was offered, although the previous alarm caused by Sir Brian Hastings had been explained, Sir Henry Saville’s prompt flight to Shrewsbury at Wingfield[1436], and Suffolk’s letter to the King on Monday 20 November, the day after the supposed attempt had been baffled by Grice’s vigilance. In this letter Suffolk wrote that the apprehension of Aske and Constable was a very doubtful matter, which he would not attempt unless he was sure that it could not come to their knowledge until it was accomplished, as if suspected it would only cause more mischief[1437]. This suggests that Suffolk had recently tried to carry out the King’s request, but, having failed, wished to hide his failure and to excuse himself from any further endeavour.
Norfolk and Fitzwilliam had already set out from London, and had advanced as far as “the house of Sir Robert a Lee,” at Quarrendon in Buckinghamshire[1438], when they were met by a messenger from Bowes and Ellerker sent to tell them that the Pilgrims had not yet decided to treat with them[1439]. Norfolk wrote to Darcy on Monday 20 November, complaining bitterly of the alarm on Martinmas day, which he attributed to false persons who desired to prevent a peaceful settlement of the trouble. He begged Darcy to use all his influence on behalf of peace, and assured him that on the King’s side nothing was “thought or meant to impeach the same our good purpose.”[1440] The Pilgrims’ suspicion had naturally been awakened by the network of royal plots which they discovered or half-discovered. They were no longer so sure as they had been in the beginning that the King was the fountain of honour, and that Norfolk was as straightforward as they were themselves. It was unfortunate that they were cheated again by Norfolk’s fair words.
In spite of the delay in the Pilgrims’ answer, Norfolk and Fitzwilliam decided to continue their journey in order to review the royal troops, inspect the fortifications at Nottingham and Derby, and consult with Suffolk at Newark[1441].
On Tuesday 21 November the great council of the Pilgrims assembled at York. The building where they held their meetings is never named. Darcy was not present; the captains agreed to excuse him on account of the difficulty which he had in travelling, and he remained at home until the second great meeting which they had already determined to hold at Pontefract[1442]. The captains who are named as being present at York were Robert Aske, Sir Robert Constable, Sir Stephen Hamerton[1443], Nicholas Tempest, Lord Latimer, Sir James Strangways, Robert Chaloner, Sir Ralph Ellerker, Robert Bowes, William Babthorpe, William Stapleton, Lord Scrope, Sir Nicholas Fairfax, and Sir Richard Tempest[1444]. There were in addition about 800 of the lesser gentlemen and commons, as a certain number had been chosen out of every wapentake or parish to attend the meeting[1445]. The Abbot of Holm Cultram gave 40s. to the representatives from Penrith[1446]. Among these less important persons were Marmaduke Neville, a younger brother of the Earl of Westmorland[1447], one Walker, John Fowbery, William Aclom, and Robert Pullen[1448]. There were also some royal spies, for instance Hugh Hilton, a servant of the Earl of Huntingdon[1449]. The most interesting of these spies was Christopher Aske. He had arrived at Wressell Castle on Friday 17 November, under safeconduct, to lay before Robert Aske the injuries that the Earl of Cumberland had received from the commons. On his arrival the two brothers fell into an argument as to whether Robert could have taken Skipton Castle or not. Robert said that though it was strong the defenders wanted artillery and powder, and he could have taken it easily. Christopher replied that it was impregnable, and should never be taken while the Earl and he himself were alive. In describing this conversation to Norfolk months afterwards, Robert acknowledged that he had been misled by an intercepted letter from Cumberland which really related to the weakness of Carlisle, and consequently perhaps he could not have taken Skipton. While the brothers were discussing this interesting point, Darcy’s letter announcing the arrival of Bowes and Ellerker was brought to Robert, who hastily prepared to ride to Templehurst with about sixty of his men. His followers grumbled at the sudden summons because they had not yet had their dinner, and said “a man was worthy his meat, or else his service was ill.” Christopher took the opportunity to assure his brother that the commons would turn against him and either kill him themselves or give him up to his enemies “like Jacques Dartnell, William Wallas and others.” Much the wisest and safest course for Robert would be to go and make his peace with the King. Robert, however, was no fine gentleman; he thoroughly understood his rough followers, and paid not the smallest attention to Christopher’s prognostications. His Yorkshiremen never betrayed him,—that was reserved for the King. While Robert was away Christopher contrived to go through his brother’s private papers, and found the scheme for invading the south which had been drawn up in case the negotiations at Doncaster should fail. Christopher afterwards went to York and there “demeaned himself so covertly that he returned to Cumberland knowing all their purposes.”[1450]
The first business of the great council at York was to appoint two hundred representatives to deal with the questions before them[1451]. Robert Bowes gave an account of his mission to this body, telling them everything that had been said and done before the King and his Council, mentioning the proposed conference at Doncaster, and reciting “the goodness of my lord Privy Seal to the commons promised by his word—and therewith he stayed.” Henry and Cromwell had made good use of the time that the ambassadors spent at court by winning them entirely to the King’s side. Bowes and Ellerker were not influenced in any dishonourable way, but they came back quite convinced of the King’s good faith and mercy, and satisfied that the Pilgrims might safely disband, since their purposes were accomplished. As far as they were personally concerned they were right to believe in Henry’s goodwill, for they were both trusted and employed by him after the rebellion.
When Bowes had finished his speech Sir Robert Constable requested him to withdraw while the council debated on it. Constable then laid before them a very different matter[1452].
Young Sir Ralph Evers had been besieged in Scarborough Castle as early as 17 October[1453]. Supplies had been sent to him about 27 October, rather against the King’s will, as he was afraid the rebels would capture them[1454]. They arrived safely, and after the truce, when the siege was raised, Evers wrote to ask Suffolk for more[1455]. His request was sent up to London on 5 November, and on 10 November Cromwell himself wrote to Evers[1456] and sent the letter to Thomas Hatcliff at Lincoln. Hatcliff despatched a trusty messenger with £100 and the letter to Grimsby, where they were entrusted to Edward Waters to be conveyed to Scarborough[1457]. On Wednesday 15 November he embarked in a “crayer,” and for some days no further news was heard of him by his comrades[1458]. He was, however, almost immediately captured by the commons of Beverley and the Wold under the leadership of John Hallam, and the siege of Scarborough Castle was at once renewed. Hallam “wrung Waters by the beard” and threatened to cut his head off. By this violence he extracted from him the confession that Cromwell had sent him[1459]. To save himself Waters produced Cromwell’s letter. The commons divided all the loose cash on the ship among them, receiving 3s. each, but they sent to Aske the £100, Edward Waters, and Cromwell’s letter. Waters remained with Aske, but his troubles were now over and he was not treated like a prisoner. He had a servant, a chamber and a feather bed of his own, and spent his time in hunting and shooting[1460].
It was the letter which had been captured on this occasion that Sir Robert Constable now read to the council of the Pilgrims at York, in order that they might compare it with “the goodness of my lord Privy Seal to the commons, promised by his word.” On 10 November Cromwell had written that if the Pilgrims continued longer in rebellion they should be so subdued that “their example shall be fearful to all subjects whiles the world doth endure.”[1461] The reading of this letter naturally made a great impression on the assembly. The flat contradiction between the two messages confirmed the suspicion that the King’s conduct had awakened. The Pilgrims doubted whether it would be safe to treat with the King while he was under the influence of a man so unscrupulous as Cromwell. Sir Robert Constable gave his advice most decidedly, “as he had broken one point in the tables with the King he would break another, and have no meeting, but have all the country made sure from Trent northwards, and then he had no doubt all Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire and the parts thereabout would join with them. Then, he said, he would condescend to a meeting.”[1462] But there were strong influences on the other side. Darcy was known to be in favour of the conference[1463]. Babthorpe spoke on the side of peace[1464]. Aske adhered steadily to his policy of trying every means to obtain peaceful redress of their grievances before they resorted to force. The King had replied to the articles, although the Pilgrims had not yet received his answer. It would be the height of inconsistency to present a petition and then refuse to receive the reply. They would commit themselves to nothing by agreeing to confer with the Duke of Norfolk, and much good might result from the conference. The treachery which they all resented so bitterly must be due to the evil influence of Cromwell, but Cromwell’s power, as they hoped, was waning. They were going to treat, not with Cromwell, but with Norfolk, and Norfolk was faithful and honourable. He would perform his promises, and once he was restored to his place at court he would bring the King back to a better frame of mind. Such seem to have been the arguments employed by the advocates of the conference, but no further record of the debate remains. In the end the peace party prevailed, and it was decided that three hundred representatives should be sent to Doncaster to meet Norfolk and to hear the King’s reply on St Nicholas’ Eve, Tuesday 5 December[1465]. This date was fixed upon in order to give time for sending messages into distant parts of the country[1466].
The next point to be discussed was the King’s complaint that the articles which had been sent to him were vague and obscure. To remove this difficulty it was resolved that another general council should be held at Pontefract two days before the conference at Doncaster. Every shire or wapentake would be desired to send the discreetest men to represent it, and the representatives must bring up a list of the grievances of their own district[1467]. This order resembles the “cahiers” of the Third Estate at the meeting of the States General in 1789. All the grievances were to be laid before the general council and digested into a set of articles explanatory of the first, and this new set of articles would be sent to Norfolk. At the same time the Archbishop of York and other learned men were to be requested to draw up spiritual articles setting forth all the grievances connected with religion[1468]. It was further resolved that Lord Darcy should be instructed to have everything prepared at Pontefract for the meeting, and a list was drawn up of the districts from which the three hundred were to be summoned, with the names of the principal gentlemen and the number of commons who were to appear from each place[1469].
After the most important business of the meeting was completed, minor points were considered. Complaints were made of the behaviour of Sir Henry Saville, and it was decided that the whole matter should be entrusted to Darcy, as he was already in communication with Shrewsbury about it[1470]. A letter was drawn up requesting the Earl of Cumberland to surrender Skipton Castle; Lord Scrope, Sir Richard Tempest and others were appointed to carry it, but in the end it seems to have been sent by Christopher Aske[1471]. All the resolutions of the meeting were written down, and a report of them was sent to Darcy[1472].
This seems to have been all the business which was transacted that day, and at the end of the afternoon sitting all dispersed to their lodgings[1473], Constable and Bowes being at the house of Sir George Lawson[1474].
Next morning Wednesday 22 November the council met again. Another obstacle in the way of peace was laid before them. There were disturbances in Lancashire, and in Dent and Sedbergh[1475]. Derby had written to Fitzwilliam on 19 November to say that he was under an obligation to melt down the lead and bells of the suppressed priory of Burscough before 30 November, but he was afraid to do so as it might provoke a fresh rising. He therefore asked the King to grant him respite. As the letter was not despatched before Sunday 19 November, he probably had received no answer and the rumour that he was going to fulfil the obligation was causing fresh unrest[1476]. When the matter was laid before the council at York, Sir Robert Constable again took the side of resistance, and advised that nothing should be done to discourage their allies in those parts. William Babthorpe spoke on the other side, and in the end a compromise was reached[1477]. Darcy was requested to communicate with Shrewsbury in order that the Earl of Derby might be restrained[1478]. In the meantime, orders were sent to Craven, Kendal, Dent, Sedbergh and Lonsdale that if Lancashire mustered they were to muster also and send word to the captain[1479]. The council felt justified in giving this order by Cromwell’s letter and the attempted relief of Scarborough, which were “contrary to the appointment.”[1480]
A letter was drawn up and sent to Norfolk to suggest arrangements for the conference at Doncaster. This letter has been lost,—may we imagine that Henry tore it up in a fit of rage?—but its contents seem to have been as follows:—
(1) The Pilgrims complained that Waters’ expedition to Scarborough was a breach of the truce[1481].
(2) The meeting at Doncaster was to take place on St Nicholas Eve, 5 December[1482].
(3) It was requested that there might be a truce for fourteen days after that date[1483].
(4) The Pilgrims required safe conducts for those who were to meet Norfolk, and hostages for Aske, as he ran the greatest risk[1484].
(5) They desired that the meeting might take place on neutral ground[1485].
The other business which came before the council that day related to the restored monasteries; as the rebels had put the monks in again the latter turned to the leaders for help in the difficulties of their new position. In reply to one of these appeals the council ordered that Robert, Prior of Guisborough, should enjoy his office, and Sir John Bulmer was required to see that the order was executed[1486]. The Prior of Sawley had sent his chaplain to Aske to desire counsel touching the house. The chaplain spoke to Nicholas Tempest, who advised him to find friends to plead his cause at the great council at Pontefract[1487].
There remains no record of the business which the council at York transacted on Thursday 23 November. There was probably some discussion of the grievances which were to be considered more fully at Pontefract. It was commonly said that the statute empowering the King to appoint his successor by will had been framed in order that Cromwell himself might be made the King’s heir. Earlier in the year it had been said that he was plotting to marry the Lady Mary[1488]. Now the story went that he was to have married Lady Margaret Douglas, the King’s niece, and that when her secret marriage with Lord Thomas Howard was discovered, the act of attainder against Lord Thomas had been procured so that it might still be possible for Cromwell to marry Lady Margaret. When John Hallam returned to Scarborough from the council at York, he reported that the council had resolved that the statute must be repealed and that the Lady Mary must be acknowledged as the King’s heir, for if these measures were not taken the King would make Cromwell his heir[1489].
The commons stated very emphatically that they would have no pardon but by Act of Parliament, and that Parliament must be held at some place where all could come and go safely. On this point one of the petty captains named Walker said to Aske at the council, “Look you well upon this matter, for it is your charge, for if you do not you shall repent it,”[1490] a prophecy which was sadly fulfilled. The commons of Westmorland had already delivered a list of their grievances, and Aske sent back instructions that they must inquire into the visitation of Legh and Layton, and take the opinion of the clergy of Cumberland and Westmorland on matters of faith[1491]. Altogether the sitting seems to have been a stormy one, and a spy reported that he thought the Pilgrims would come to no agreement with Norfolk at Doncaster[1492].
On Friday 24 November an order was made, by the advice of Bowes[1493], that there should be no plundering, musters nor casting down of enclosures until the meeting at Doncaster, unless “commanded by our captain general or else warned by burning of beacons and ringing of bells awkward,” which alarm would only be given on sufficient grounds[1494]. There is no record of any other business, and the council seems to have broken up on Saturday 25 November.
The break up of the council at York was followed by an uneasy movement through all the rebel country. Suffolk was alarmed by a report that the beacons of Holderness, Howden and Marshland were burned on Thursday and Friday, 23 and 24 November, and that musters were being held there[1495]. Sir Ralph Ellerker returned to Hull on or before Sunday 26 November, and the garrison tried to stop the communication which had been established between Hull and Grimsby[1496]. On the night of 28 November armed men with their faces blackened went round the parish of Chorley in Lancashire, under the leadership of John the Piper, and forced the inhabitants to take the oath to God, the King and the commons[1497]. Lord Monteagle could not collect his rents in Kendal, and arrested a vicar who spoke in favour of the rebellion[1498].
While the council at York was sitting Norfolk and Fitzwilliam were inspecting the lines of defence prepared by the royal troops. Their arrangement was as follows:
Gonson was in command at Grimsby, and Sir Anthony Browne at Barton, with his men disposed along the Trent from Barton to Gainsborough[1499]. Sir Brian Hastings held Doncaster, and had fortified the bridge, while on 22 November the Earl of Rutland sent Sir Nicholas Sturley with six pieces of ordnance, 100 men and gunners to occupy Tickhill Castle, five miles south of Doncaster. Shrewsbury had made sure of Rotherham, as the idea of fortifying Derby had been given up[1500].
Suffolk and his staff were at Lincoln. The Duke occupied the Dean’s house, and in the Cathedral was the harness which had been collected from the Lincolnshire rebels. In the castle were about 140 prisoners, several of whom had been saved from execution by the truce. The villages along the Humber and the Trent were occupied, and the boats had been collected so that they might be instantly destroyed if there was an alarm. The council, that is probably Suffolk’s council, had resolved to build a tower on a hill between Lincoln and the Trent[1501].
The captains at Newark were Sir Francis Brian and Sir John Russell with 700 men. This was also Richard Cromwell’s post, but he had been sent up to the King. The castle was supplied with ordnance, and the people of the neighbourhood had been ordered to bring in a certain quantity of grain from each township. They were submissive and feared Lord Borough and the Lincolnshire captains. The bridge was being fortified, and a drawbridge over the Trent was being built at Muskham, a village to the south of Newark, but the river was very shallow and difficult to defend, except when the floods were out[1502]. After the wet October, the weather was better about the middle of November and the water fell. The castle would only hold 100 men and had no supply of water[1503].
At Nottingham the castle was held by the Earl of Rutland with four or five hundred men, and the gentlemen of the neighbourhood, who sat in council with him weekly. It was provisioned and supplied with corn in the same way as Newark. Rutland had built a new drawbridge and fortifications. The country people were loyal[1504]. The castle was well supplied with ordnance, but more gunners and powder were needed, as Suffolk and Shrewsbury were always sending for powder, which Rutland could ill spare[1505].
All the royal commanders were constantly writing for money, but a fairly adequate supply was now forthcoming[1506], though the King was so anxious to be economical that John Henneage received orders to pay none of the monastic pensions or debts in Lincolnshire except in very urgent cases. On 27 November Suffolk remonstrated warmly against such an impolitic means of saving. He would rather pay the pensions out of his own pocket, he declared, if he had the money, than that the men of Lincolnshire should be made to remember their late folly, and to suspect that the charges of the suppressed houses would not be paid[1507]. Half the debt was paid and the other half held over[1508].
When he despatched Ellerker and Bowes to the north, the King wrote to Suffolk on 14 November that a free pardon might be proclaimed to all Lincolnshire men except those who were in prison. Henry stated that he was moved to this clemency by comparing the repentant demeanour of Lincolnshire with the continued rebellion of Yorkshire. Part of the weapons which had been collected might be restored to the most trustworthy gentlemen, to distribute among men of approved loyalty, but great care must be exercised in this. If Norfolk summoned Suffolk to be present at Doncaster, he must leave Sir Francis Brian and Sir William Parre as his deputies at Lincoln[1509]. Suffolk received these orders on the 16th, and wrote back to report the position on the 18th. He begged the King to appoint some place for storing the weapons which were not given back; the orders as to fortifying Doncaster, Newark and other places had been carried out, but Suffolk reminded the King that he had only 3600 men to hold a river line of fifty miles[1510].
Such was the general disposition of the royal troops while the Pilgrims were holding their council at York.
Norfolk and Fitzwilliam approached slowly. On Wednesday 22 November they had reached Towcester and received news of the alarm caused by Sir Henry Saville on the 19th. Norfolk wrote Darcy a letter of reproof for “innovations attempted,” which he forgot to sign[1511], and it must have given Darcy some small satisfaction to be able to point this out in his reply of Sunday 26 November to “your letter, as I think by the seal, but it is unsigned.” His reply contained only an assurance that the disturbance was entirely due to Saville, and that he desired peace as much as Norfolk[1512]. Darcy had written to Sir Brian Hastings as early as 20 November to arrange for lodgings in Doncaster for the conference[1513], but the King’s captains were surprised to hear a rumour that he intended to bring 10,000 men there on Thursday 30 November and that 10,000 more were summoned to meet at Wakefield on the following Monday[1514].
Norfolk and Fitzwilliam reached Leicester on Friday 24 November, where they received the letter which had been drawn up by the council at York on the 22nd[1515]. They despatched a copy of it to Suffolk[1516] and sent the original to the King, who replied to it on Monday 27 November[1517].
Henry’s answer is one of those documents which fill the reader with reluctant admiration and reveal the secret of his constant success. It shows the attitude which the King had deliberately assumed towards the rebellion. According to his version of the event, a few unscrupulous persons had misled the commons of Yorkshire by false stories about the acts of the King’s parliament. The ignorant commons had thereupon risen and forced the gentlemen to join them by threatening their lives. The gentlemen, however, although they had taken the treasonable oath, had succeeded in staying the commons, and after inducing them to disperse quietly had sent two gentlemen to the King to explain their unwilling treason and to sue for pardon. This the King was willing to grant to them, in consideration of the ignorance of the commons and the force used to the gentlemen, on condition that the seditious persons who had first stirred up the tumult were taken and surrendered to the royal justice. The chief of these seditious persons of course was Aske. Henry put forward this account of the rising so consistently and so firmly that he convinced not only his contemporaries but also his historians, and it has been so universally accepted that it is necessary to consider whether it is really true, and all the foregoing history a mere exaggeration. The answer to this question is given by the preparations against the rebels which have just been described. Henry was the last man in the world to garrison a chain of forts from Grimsby to Nottingham and to spend thousands of pounds on keeping an army under arms for two months merely to suppress a trivial rising of discontented labourers. The gravity of the situation was perfectly apparent to the King, but he knew the value of telling a consistent and dignified story, not only to foreign courts and to the south, where news came so slowly and uncertainly that the King’s account was sure to be accepted, but even to the rebels themselves. It is difficult at all times to believe that a clear, firm statement is a deliberate lie, and it was particularly difficult for the northern gentlemen to believe that the King was lying. The whole tone of the King’s letter was such as to make the gentlemen feel small and ashamed of themselves, and yet to suggest that if only they would be sensible and come up to the King, as any reasonable person would do, they might still be safe and recover their self-respect.
Henry began by marvelling at the expressions used in their last letter, which sounded almost as if they made themselves a party with the commons. As for their complaint that he had broken the truce by attempting to send letters and money to Scarborough, he did not even condescend to reply to it directly. Of course the King must be at full liberty to send anything he pleased to any of his subjects at any time or place.
He went on to declare that he would not send Norfolk and Fitzwilliam to the Pilgrims until he was better assured of their loyalty. Now the Pilgrims did not want Norfolk to come before 5 December; until then they would have been much better pleased if he had stayed with the King. But Henry contrived to put his threat in such a way that the readers of the letter would probably never think of that, and would feel that Norfolk really must be allowed to continue his journey if possible.
In the third place Henry remonstrated against the suggestion that his own subjects, resorting to the man appointed as his deputy, should require a safeconduct, a neutral meeting-place, a special truce and hostages. It was not like subjects petitioning their king, but like a war between princes. They were perfectly mad to make such a demand, and if they were not careful he would take measures to cut them off as corrupt members.
In the fourth place, Henry “thought no little shame” that the northern gentlemen allowed “such a villain as Aske” to subscribe their letter before them all. Aske was “a common pedlar in the law,” whose “filed tongue and false surmises have ... brought him in this unfitting estimation among you.” In the opinion of Henry and all his nobles the honour of the gentlemen was greatly touched in that they had allowed such a thing.
This was the boldest and cleverest stroke in the whole letter. The gentlemen complained that the King’s minister Cromwell was base-born and not fit to sit on the royal council. The King retorted that their leader was a villain, that is, not a scoundrel in the modern sense, but a villein or serf, a man born unfree. Henry’s accusation was quite groundless; Aske’s family was armigerous, and he was cousin to half the gentlemen in Yorkshire. Nevertheless the King’s assertion was likely to do almost as much harm as if it had been true. The grand captain was regarded with jealousy by many gentlemen who had not the courage to hold his post, and if the King told them that their honour was touched in following him, then it must be touched; the King must know best.
Finally Henry closed his letter by declaring that in spite of everything he would still be merciful. If the Pilgrims would permit free recourse to the King on the part of his subjects, withdraw from the castles and towns they were holding, send the ship that they had taken to Evers, and “show their submission by deeds,” i.e. by surrendering Aske to the King, he would perhaps be graciously pleased to pardon them, though he did not actually promise to do so, but if they did not do all this immediately then he did not intend that Norfolk should “common with them further.”[1518]
Though he took this high tone in writing to the Pilgrims themselves, Henry did not neglect other precautions. He instructed Norfolk to make sure of Doncaster and Rotherham[1519], and told Suffolk that he might promise pardons to the gentlemen of Marshland who had entered into communication with him[1520]. On receiving a copy of the Pilgrims’ letter, Suffolk had written to the King in great alarm to excuse himself from any complicity in the despatch of Waters to Scarborough[1521], but Henry was quite prepared to pass over that incident and did not even refer to it. As he believed that Sir Robert Constable was still at York, he ordered Suffolk to practise with the townsfolk of Hull, in order that the town might be seized at the first favourable opportunity[1522].
Other measures were also taken. The royal spies in the north endeavoured to frighten the commons by spreading reports that the Emperor and the King of France were coming to help Henry, each with 40,000 men, and by exaggerating the number of the musters at Ampthill. They reported that the commons were in great dread of the King’s ordnance, having little of their own[1523].
As it was the religious grievances which made the rising so threatening, the King proceeded to demonstrate his orthodoxy in the usual way, by persecuting the heretics. “This year, 12 November, being Sunday, there was a priest bore a faggot at Paul’s Cross standing in his surplice for heresy, which priest did celebrate at his mass with ale.”[1524] On 17 November Barnes was imprisoned in the Tower, and Field, Marshall, Goodall and “another of that sort of learning,” probably Rastell, were all arrested[1525]. John Bale was examined on 19 November concerning certain heretical doctrines which he was accused of preaching. The interrogatories put to him have not been preserved, but one of his answers might have been laid to heart by the inquisitors of all religious parties; he said that “he would fain know of his accusers who is so familiar with God as may know that secret point?”[1526] Field and Rastell appear to have been examined at the same time[1527].
On 19 November Henry issued a circular to his bishops. It was drawn up in two forms, one for heretical bishops, reproving them for their offences, the other, for those who had not gone so far, cautioning them as to their behaviour. The bishops were ordered to explain personally the King’s Articles to their flocks, to preach passive obedience to the King, to observe and maintain all laudable ceremonies, and to prevent all unlicensed preaching and contemptuous words about usages and ceremonies[1528]. Several little tracts on the advantages of peace and the duty of obeying the King were also circulated, and the King’s reply to the Lincolnshire rebels was printed and issued[1529].
An allusion has already been made to the report that Henry would receive help from abroad. A marriage between Mary and the Duke of Angoulême, now Orleans, had long been hinted at by the French and English ambassadors at the respective courts. On 11 October 1536 Henry wrote to Gardiner and Wallop, his ambassadors in France, that they were not to allow it to appear that he desired the match, but were to induce the French to make all the advances[1530].
In the same letter he mentioned the rising in Lincolnshire, but treated it very lightly[1531]. On 5 November he wrote again to declare that the reports of the insurrection were very much exaggerated, that it was all over, and the two shires of York and Lincoln lay entirely at his mercy. Pomeroy had arrived from France to treat of the marriage of Mary and Angoulême, but Henry was not satisfied with the form of his credentials, which he considered too unceremonious. He had referred the ambassador to the Council, and intended to give him no certain answer[1532].
On 10 November the Imperial ambassador was informed that the Council was considering the French match and that Francis was so anxious to bring it about that he was willing to consent if Mary were only declared the King’s heir in default of legitimate issue, and given a title and an income. The Emperor had been proposing a marriage between Mary and Don Luis of Portugal, which Mary herself would have preferred. The negotiations with France were used to bring the Imperial ambassador to the point of making a formal proposal for her hand, and on 23 November Chapuys wrote to ask for instructions, as Mary informed him that Francis had offered to settle an income of 80,000 ducats on her marriage with Angoulême, but her father still made little of the proposal[1533]. So long as Henry could tantalize both monarchs with the offer of Mary’s hand, he knew he need not fear that either of them would help the rebels.
Such were the King’s measures of precaution; to which may be added the vigilant watch kept upon the southern counties, to repress the first signs of disaffection. William Constable, Sir Robert’s son, who was wandering about the country with his schoolmaster, was arrested at Stowe in November[1534], and afterwards detained at Ross in the Christmas holidays[1535]. Two men were arrested and examined in London because they came from Louth[1536], and information was received against another Lincolnshire man, who was said to have used seditious language at Fittleworth in Sussex[1537]. Norfolk’s complaint that he could not trust his soldiers receives some confirmation from reports of the musters in Kent and in Suffolk, where some of the men were heard to declare that the northern men had right on their side and that they themselves would not fight against the rebels[1538]. On 22 November a pedlar was committed to Canterbury gaol for spreading sedition[1539]. From time to time a bold parish priest ventured to express his sympathy with the rebels. On 26 October the parson of Wimborne, Dorset, “preached purgatory.”[1540] In the Isle of Wight on 11 November the vicar of Thorley denied the royal supremacy[1541], and the parson of Wickham in Hampshire fled from an accusation of sedition[1542]. The parson of Radwell in Hertford preached against the suppression of the abbeys in November[1543].
On 19 October Bishop Latimer sent to Cromwell copies of some ancient Latin verses, containing a lament over the oppression of the Church, and also some fantastic prophecies. The Bishop remarked that he sent them because he knew that Cromwell loved antiquities, and that the bearer would explain how some people expounded the lines[1544]. These were no doubt some of the prophecies which were being circulated by Cromwell’s opponents[1545]. A man was imprisoned at Bath on 20 October for repeating a prophecy, although he protested that he did not know its meaning[1546], and another was accused in December of speaking against Cromwell at the Antelope inn in Worcester[1547].
During the time of the insurrection Cromwell kept himself a good deal in the background, for the hatred he inspired was as strong a bond between gentlemen and commons as religious enthusiasm. He was as much in favour with the King as ever, and was always within reach of the court, but he did not reside there[1548]. He was in London when Bowes and Ellerker were with the King at Windsor, and Cresswell had not seen him at court for two days together[1549]. On 21 November the King was at Richmond, and Cromwell still was not with him[1550], but his absence did not deceive the watchful eyes which were upon him. The Pilgrims had friends in the south who were able to send them information on such points. One of these secret friends came to Aske after the council at York. He found the captain sick of a “severe colic,” which prevented him from riding to Templehurst, as he had intended to do after the council. The secret friend, whose name is unknown, reported that the King was at Richmond, and “Cromwell only the ruler about him.” Cromwell was more bitterly hated than ever, and the south parts longed for the coming of the Pilgrims, but they must be on their guard, for on Thursday 23 November ten ships of war took ordnance from the Tower, and it was said that Suffolk was advancing with 20,000 men. Aske was not sure whether to believe the last news, but he considered it a suspicious circumstance that Sir Anthony Browne had occupied Doncaster. He wrote to ask Darcy to remonstrate about the fortification of Doncaster Bridge and to watch Ferrybridge and Pontefract[1551].
Not only did the rebels receive news from the south but in spite of all precautions on the part of the government the rebel manifestoes found their way southward, and even one copy could travel far and quickly. Richard Fletcher, the gaoler of Norwich, was at Lynn on Sunday 29 October, and there met some of Norfolk’s disbanded troops. One of these men, who was the clerk of Mr Fermor, son and heir of Sir Harry Fermor, gave Fletcher a bill to deliver to John Manne of Norwich; his story was that his master had been given this bill by the Duke of Norfolk. Fletcher supped at the Bell at Lynn, and by the desire of the company the bill was read aloud. The goodman of the inn, George Wharton, was so much struck by its contents that he caused one of Fletcher’s prisoners to make two copies of it. It seems in fact to have been Aske’s second manifesto. When Fletcher reached Norwich he showed the bill to several people including the Mayor, Mr Fermor, who “marvelled that such a bill should be suffered to go abroad,” but did not attempt to suppress it. Fletcher delivered the original to John Manne, but kept a copy for himself, which he continued to show to his friends. At length he went up to London, and while there Leonard Stanger, servant to Mr Willoughby, saw the bill and “said it was naught and took it away to burn it.” Meanwhile George Wharton of the Bell at Lynn gave one of his copies of the bill to some Cornish soldiers who were coming from the north on a pilgrimage to Walsingham. This gift may have had curious results[1552]. His other copy he lent out among his neighbours[1553]. At Templehurst on 18 November Aske was heard to say that he had given a copy of the oath to a gentleman of Norfolk, who would forward the matter in the south[1554].
Another manifesto which had probably been going about the country for some time was taken at Bromsgrove, Worcester, on 12 December[1555]. A fourth was circulating in a higher rank of society. On Sunday 19 November Sir George Throgmorton attended the morning sermon at St Paul’s, and there met his friend Sir John Clarke. After the sermon they dined together at the Horse Head in Cheapside, and when the goodman and his wife had left the room the two gentlemen began to discuss the rising in the north. Sir George had read the King’s printed reply to the Lincolnshire rebels, but he did not know what the Yorkshiremen demanded. Sir John promised to let him see a copy of their articles[1556]. They walked back to St Paul’s together and parted, and that night Sir John’s servant brought Throgmorton a copy of the Pilgrims’ oath, the five articles, and one of Aske’s proclamations[1557].
A few nights later Sir George Throgmorton supped at the Queen’s Head in Fleet Street betwixt the Temple gates[1558]. At this inn there was an informal club of lawyers and members of parliament, who, if they had dared to say so, were in opposition to the government[1559]. On this particular evening Sir George met another frequenter of the Queen’s Head, Sir William Essex, and again the conversation turned on the northern rebellion. Sir William was curious about the demands of the Pilgrims, and Sir George sent his servant to find and bring back his copy of the oath, etc., which he had “thrown into a window,” i.e. put into the box under the window-seat. Sir William kept the papers for several days, caused his servant to copy them, and returned them to Throgmorton. After this Essex returned to his home near Reading. His own copy of the papers he kept carefully put away, but his chamber-boy, Geoffrey Gunter, who had copied them for him, had also made another copy for himself[1560]. Geoffrey Gunter was not discreet. He lent his copy to William Wyre, the host of the Cardinal’s Inn at Reading, and within a week there were several copies circulating in the town. Richard Snow, vicar of St Giles, obtained one and Richard Turner another, but they were uneasy about the matter, and on 30 November they gave their copies to the bailiff and the serjeant of Reading, to be laid before the magistrates of the town. The justices on 2 December examined all the parties in Reading, and sent their replies to Cromwell[1561]. They were all summoned to London immediately. On their way they met Sir George Throgmorton, who was going to visit Sir William Essex. He was told about the affair, and although he tried to make light of it, saying that everybody in London was reading the rebels’ articles and Aske’s letters, yet secretly he was very much disturbed, and burnt his copy. Sir William Essex, who had burnt his also, was almost ill with anxiety, and on receiving orders to examine Gunter and send him up to London, Essex set out to throw himself upon the King’s mercy. Throgmorton, hearing nothing from him, followed him up to London, only to find that Essex was in the Tower and that he himself must join him there[1562]. In January 1537 they were still prisoners, and it was thought that the charges against them were very grave[1563], but towards the end of the month they were released[1564]. It does not appear whether Sir John Clarke was ever called to account for his share of the business.
The presence of secret friends of the Pilgrims in the south was more alarming than the mutterings of discontent among the peasantry. They might be found anywhere, in the army, at court, in the King’s Council. Henry never more than half believed Norfolk’s reports of the rebels’ strength, because he knew that the Duke secretly sympathised with the enemy. But though that altered the direction of Henry’s fears, it did not allay them, for a king is in a dangerous position when he cannot trust his own commander-in-chief. There were continual rumours that Norfolk had either gone over to the Pilgrims or allowed himself to be taken by them[1565]. He himself said that he could not trust his men[1566], and there was even a story that one of the soldiers had attacked him with a dagger[1567]. The loyalty of the Marquis of Exeter, who was sent with Norfolk and Shrewsbury against the rebels[1568], was still more doubtful than that of Norfolk. He held his command, however, until the first appointment at Doncaster[1569], and offered to advance the King money for the payment of his men[1570]. As soon as he was ready to set out in the first instance, he was stopped by a countermand[1571], and when he did start, on 18 October, he was behind Norfolk, who contrived to obtain all the money sent down from the Treasury. On 21 October Exeter had “not a penny to convey himself and his train toward my lord Steward.”[1572] Money was sent to him at Ampthill on 23 October[1573]. He joined Norfolk in the end[1574], but he took very little part in the campaign[1575]. When the truce was made he returned to court, where his wife had been in waiting on the Queen since the middle of October[1576]. As a reward for his services he received a grant of the dissolved priory of Breamore on 9 November[1577]. Reginald Pole’s brothers, Lord Montague and Sir Geoffrey Pole, were ordered to provide men at the beginning of the rebellion, and Montague was to attend on the King’s own person[1578].
A little more light is thrown on the mystery of the Pilgrims’ southern correspondents by a letter from Chapuys to Charles V, which was despatched on 22 November. It is in the form of a journal, written from day to day from the beginning of the month. His earliest news was that the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquis and others had gone to confer with the rebels, and that if they had not wisely resolved on this step, the King would have been in great danger. The ambassador’s informant was “one of the principal gentlemen in the King’s army.” Chapuys next heard that Norfolk had come up to court, both to justify his own action and to forward the petitions of the northern men. Norfolk was bringing with him two ambassadors from the rebels “Master Raphael Endecherche and Master Dos.” Norfolk and the other noblemen “were all good Christians”; they did not wish for a battle, and showed as openly as they dared that they thought the rebels had right on their side.
Chapuys gave a brief account of the rebels’ position. They were reported to be 40,000 strong, and among them were 10,000 cavalry. They were in good order, but required money and musketeers. Their banner was a crucifix, and Lord Darcy and the Archbishop of York were with them. Their numbers would probably increase, as the south parts sympathised with them, and presently news came that another province (Cumberland and Westmorland) had risen because the return of the ambassadors was delayed. The lack of money might ruin everything, but this would be remedied if the Pope sent Reginald Pole with supplies, and want of money was not felt on one side only, for Henry had complained to Mary that the insurrection had cost him £200,000.