Chapter XVIII: The Duke of Norfolk’s Mission (3)

Jervaux was disposed of in as short a time; the monks had been
dispossessed by Norfolk before 31 May, and Sir George Lawson, Robert
Bowes, Blytheman and others were left in charge. The abbey church was
covered with lead, half of which belonged to the parishioners. Norfolk
made a choice selection from the spoils, including a ring, a silver
cross and censers. Beckwith, who carried letters to London, was
charged to give the King “this stone called the best stone.” “Item,
after this manner all men will be desirous to see dissolution.”[677]
It is a matter for conjecture whether the defrauded parishioners were
so well satisfied, or whether they received their own part of the lead
and preferred that to their parish church. Sir Arthur Darcy, in a
letter to Cromwell of 8 June, commended Jervaux as “one of the fairest
churches I have seen, fair meadows and the river running by it and a
great demesne.” He thought that Jervaux would be a better place for
the King’s stud of mares than Thornbury[678]. If this arrangement
would have saved the abbey it is a pity it was not carried out.

When Richard Pollard surveyed Bridlington in June, it is satisfactory
to learn that he found most of the movables had been stolen by the
poor folk of the neighbourhood[679].

Note F. It has been suggested to us that if we are neither satisfied
with the jury of enemies nor with the jury of friends, it is because
whatever the government did is wrong in our eyes. The third
possibility, a jury of indifferent men, does not seem to have occurred
to our critic. Norfolk had all the gentlemen of the north to choose
from; and if it be urged that indifferent men would be difficult to
find at such a time of political excitement, still he could easily
have avoided the Pilgrims’ near relatives, and enemies who had
actually given evidence against them on the charge that was being
tried. (For Rudston’s evidence against Constable see L. and P. XII
(1), 1130; for Saville’s evidence against Darcy see L. and P. XII (1),
1087 (p. 497).) It is true that to appoint an indifferent jury is a
counsel of perfection which in similar circumstances would very likely
not be followed in our own age. If Norfolk had merely named two juries
of loyalists, we should not have called it justice, but it would have
been so natural and indeed inevitable as to merit no special comment.
It appears to us that Norfolk’s actual proceedings, as set forth in
his own letters, were very far from natural, and were deliberately
calculated to give the greatest possible pain both to the accused and
to those jurors who were forced either to condemn their relatives or
to show “their cankered hearts” to a jealous government. And we
believe that “outrage” would not be considered too strong a word for
his conduct by most honest men either in that age or our own.