Chapter XX: The End of the Pilgrimage (2)

Sir Stephen Hamerton came up to London as unsuspiciously as Sir Thomas Percy. He was examined in the Tower on 25 April by Tregonwell, Layton and Legh[1090]. The only points alleged against him were the occurrence of his name in the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication and his meeting with the Abbot’s messenger[1091]. Even the prosecution admitted that in this there was no matter against him except before the pardon[1092], but as usual it was laid to his charge that he had not arrested the messenger[1093]. A modern lawyer might as well accuse a man of failing to arrest the postman who delivered a letter containing a forged cheque. There was a general feeling in the north that messengers ought to have something of the privilege of heralds; their exemption from responsibility was both convenient and just, as they were servants who were obliged to obey their masters’ orders, and did not necessarily know the contents of the letters that they carried. The government was doing its best to destroy this privileged position.

John Hynde, King’s serjeant-at-law, who had been so successful in Lincolnshire, conducted the prosecution of Sir Thomas Percy and Sir Stephen Hamerton[1094]. Like the Bulmers they first pleaded not guilty, and then withdrew the plea and substituted guilty[1095]. There is something suspicious in this change. The King was always anxious to obtain a confession of guilt from those whom he intended to execute, and he did not care what means were employed to attain his object. It is possible that the prisoners were induced to plead guilty by the promise of a mitigated sentence.

Sir Stephen Hamerton was probably a victim to his feud with the Stanleys[1096]. No other reason can be found for his condemnation, as the extant evidence against him is trifling and he had not distinguished himself during the insurrection. The Earl of Derby had done Henry good service; he probably interested himself in his cousin’s quarrel, and if he asked for any favour from the King, such as the life of a man, he was not likely to be refused. Sir Stephen’s son Henry Hamerton died about two months after his father; it was said that his death was caused by grief at his father’s execution[1097].

Sir Robert Constable was arrested about the same time as Lord Darcy[1098]. He was examined, but his answers have not been preserved[1099]. The evidence against him was of the slightest description. He had been present at the famous dinner party when Darcy, Hussey, and he declared themselves no heretics[1100], but there was and is nothing to show that he knew of Darcy’s communications with Chapuys.

At the beginning of the Lincolnshire rising he “took Philips, a captain of the commons of Lincolnshire, servant to Lord Hussey, and brought him to the lords at Nottingham.” They sent Sir Robert to pacify the East Riding, with orders to join Darcy at Pontefract “if the commons were in great number.” He was in the Castle when it was surrendered, but he could not be considered responsible for the act of the commander[1101].

The principal evidence against him was based on the letters which he had received from and sent to Bigod[1102]. In particular Bigod had said that there was no man whom the commons trusted so much as Constable[1103]. In his reply Sir Robert urged Bigod to give up his purpose. The concluding words of his letter, in the original draft which is in Aske’s handwriting, were “Thus in all your worshipful affairs our Lord be your governor.”[1104] It is very much to be wished that the history of this draft could be traced. Perhaps after writing it Aske handed it over to a servant to be copied. This was Lord Darcy’s method of letter-writing. The copy would be sent to Bigod, and the original would remain in the possession of Sir Robert Constable, at whose house it was written. The copy might fall into the hands of the government when Bigod’s, and the draft when Constable’s, papers were seized[1105]. But the copy, if it ever existed, has not been preserved.

There is a reason for this theorising. At Constable’s trial a certified copy of the letter was produced, but it does not tally with the draft. The most important difference is in the conclusion, which, in the certified copy, runs “Thus in your worshipful affair, our Lord be your governor.”[1106] The prosecution, of course, insisted that Bigod’s “worshipful affair” was the insurrection, and that Constable was praying for its success. The phrase “all your worshipful affairs” has much less significance. Unless the theory outlined above is accepted as the history of the letter, the certified copy must have been deliberately altered from the original draft to strengthen the case against Sir Robert. On the other hand, if a copy of the original draft was sent to Bigod, it may have contained whether by accident or intention, the slight but important variation in the conclusion. Yet if such a version were in the possession of the government there seems no necessity for a certified copy.

Constable was accused, like Darcy, of saying that the King had promised a general pardon and a free parliament. He had also told the commons to stay only until the Duke of Norfolk came[1107]. To this he replied that such were the King’s orders: “The King’s letters to me were to stay the country till the Duke of Norfolk’s coming, and so I did.”[1108] But it was useless to plead his own orders to Henry when he did not choose to acknowledge them.

Constable’s letter which requested Rudston to liberate Bigod’s messengers was brought forward, and also the mythical letter to the mayor of Hull for the deliverance of Hallam[1109]. These letters have been discussed above[1110].

Finally Constable was one of the leaders to whom Levening had appealed, and in his case, as in the others, Levening’s acquittal was overlooked[1111].

When the prisoners were brought out of the Tower for trial, a mistake was made in the destination of Sir Robert Constable and Lady Bulmer, who were sent first to the Guild Hall. The trial took place in Westminster Hall, and the two mis-sent prisoners were despatched thither[1112]. At the trial Sir Thomas Willoughby, serjeant-at-law, appeared against both Constable and Aske[1113]. Sir Robert pleaded not guilty and maintained the plea, whatever inducements may have been used to make him withdraw it. The jury returned a verdict of guilty[1114].

Sir Marmaduke Constable the younger was honourably free from the fear or coldness which kept the relations of the other prisoners from exertions on their behalf. He was now in London doing what he could for his father, who wrote to tell him how to use in his favour all the influence at court which the Constable family possessed. Sir Robert had hopes of obtaining the intercession of Lord Beauchamp, the Earl of Rutland, and the Queen, to whom he was distantly related. If all were in vain he charged his son to see that his debts were paid[1115]. Sir Robert petitioned Cromwell, not for his life, but for the payment of these debts. He had no money himself; it had all been spent during his imprisonment, for prisoners had to maintain themselves in the Tower, as the government allowance went into the Lieutenant’s pocket. Four gentlemen had lately been Sir Robert’s sureties for a payment to the King, and he particularly desired that they should not be allowed to lose by their bond; “Alas, that these poor gentlemen that were so lately bound for me and never had profit by me should be undone!”[1116] The matter weighed upon his mind, and before his death he sent in another list of his debts[1117].

Robert Aske went up to London on 24 March[1118]. He knew that he was going into danger, and left a horse at Buntingford in order that he might send back a message as to how he fared[1119]. It need hardly be explained that this cannot have been with any idea of a fresh rising, as all the other leaders came up to London at the same time; it was simply a private means of communication with his friends. On 7 April 1537 he was arrested and committed to the Tower[1120]. He was repeatedly examined and both the interrogatories and the replies have fortunately been preserved[1121]. It is easy to see why this happened. Darcy’s and Constable’s examinations can have been only of personal interest, but Aske’s were of real value to the government. They describe the state of the north and the whole course of the rebellion as seen by a very thoughtful and able man. In writing his long, careful answers to the interrogatories Aske perhaps cherished to the last a desperate hope that he might do some good to his country. His cause had failed, his life was forfeit, but his words might still be carried to the King’s ear and might have some effect. His most elaborate replies were begun on 11 April, almost immediately after his arrest and imprisonment, and were continued on the 15th. His next set, undated, but written later, concluded with a partly illegible petition to his examiners:

“I most humbly beseech you all to be so good unto me ... measures or
by your favor to my lord privey ... yt mr ... tenant myght discherg my
comyns to myn hostes as ... might know ... whether I might send for my
rentes or fees or not without any ... disples ... to any man for onles
the kinges highnes and my lord privey seall be mercifull and gracius
unto me.... I am not able to lyf for non of my frendes will not do
nothing for me, and I have ned to have a payre of hous a dublet of
fusthean a shirt for I have but one shirt her and a pare of showes I
beseech you hertely that I may know your mynd herin and how I shalbe
ordered yt I may trust to the same for the luf of god.”[1122]

No attention was paid to this pitiful appeal. On 11 May Aske was examined for the last time by Dr Legh and John ap Rice. At the end of his replies is another petition:

“Good mr doctor I beseech you to send me mony and my stuf as a shirt a
paire of hous a dublite and a paire of shown for nether I have mony
nor ger to were as ye sawe yourself for the reverence of god send me
the same or els I know not how to do nor lyf and that mr pollerd be
remembred for the same.”[1123]

Aske had now been more than a month in the Tower without the common necessities of life. He remained there about two months longer, and some sort of allowance must have been made to him, as the King wanted him to be kept alive for the royal purposes.

There was one charge against Aske which, if it could have been proved, would have warranted his condemnation, but it was not discovered until after his execution and was never properly investigated. On 2 August 1537 the Bishop of Rochester informed Cromwell that he had arrested at Bromley a priest called Matthew Fisher, who confessed that he had fled from the north at Whitsuntide. This priest stated that on Midlent Sunday, 11 March 1536–7, the captains of “his country” had received letters from Aske which ordered them to rise again, and 400 men had mustered, he himself being among them. The Bishop added that he believed there were other fugitives in his diocese who had fled from the north when Aske was arrested[1124]. There seems to be no foundation for this vague story. The Bishop never mentioned the name of Fisher’s “country,” but it is certain that in Midlent Aske was riding in Norfolk’s train under close surveillance[1125]. The reports from the north on and after 11 March are full, and not a word is said of any stirring[1126], while the royal lieutenants were so anxiously watchful that it was impossible for 400 men to muster without some report reaching one of them. The Bishop, who may not have been very well informed about northern affairs, probably misunderstood Fisher, who was perhaps concerned in the Cumberland or the Richmond rising; or possibly Fisher was one of the half-insane informers who appear from time to time.

Apart from this, the evidence against Aske is the same which has been repeated with wearisome regularity in the cases of Darcy and Constable. There is a certain probability that Aske knew about the intended rebellion before it broke out, but there was no proof of this foreknowledge then and there is none now. Aske had taken a small part in the Lincolnshire rebellion, but for that the King had expressly pardoned him[1127]. It was objected against him that during the insurrection he made himself the chief rebel and that at the same time he had “a proud and traitorous heart,”[1128] but for this also the King had pardoned him.

By Norfolk’s advice Aske was questioned as to what had become of his money, “for he received no small sums in these countries of abbots, priors and others during the insurrection.”[1129] It was highly characteristic that Norfolk should imagine Aske to have been quietly feathering his own nest by extortions from the religious houses which he was nominally defending, but an insurrection is a costly affair and Aske had spent all the money he could obtain as fast as he received it on necessary expenses. He had made a declaration of the spoils that he had shared in when he was at Court, and the King was then “gracious to him therein.”[1130]

As Aske’s replies are preserved, some of the evidence which was brought against both himself and Darcy is discredited. He had received no message from Darcy on going up to London for the first time[1131], and he had informed Norfolk of Levening’s petition[1132]. Like Constable he was charged with an attempt to secure the liberation of Hallam and of Bigod’s messengers[1133], and with bidding the commons stay only till the Duke of Norfolk’s coming[1134].

The chief point against him, as against the others, was that in the middle of January he still expected that there would be a parliament, convocation and a general pardon; thereby showing that if his “unreasonable requests” were not granted, he would “revive his traitor’s heart.”[1135] He had written to Darcy on 8 January 1536–7 that the King had granted free election of knights and burgesses, and free speech in convocation. He concluded, “Trusting your Lordship shall perceive I have done my duty as well to the King’s grace, under his favour, as also to my country, and have played my part, and thereby I trust all England shall rejoice.” This was held to prove that “he continues in his traitor’s heart and rejoices in his treasons, and it is to be noted that he, by writing of the same letter, committeth a new treason.”[1136] He also committed a new treason by saying to the commons “your reasonable petitions shall be ordered in parliament.”[1137]

Although it was plainly treason that Aske should believe the King’s promise, it was also treason to write that “it was reported the King would not be as good as he promised concerning the church lands.”[1138] This lost letter of Aske’s has already been discussed[1139].

These accusations were based chiefly on the papers which had been seized at Aske’s lodgings in London when he was arrested[1140]. He does not seem to have kept copies of the letters which he wrote, except in the case of one manifesto[1141]. There are only thirteen letters preserved which were written to him and of these seven are copies which were in the possession of other people[1142]. The remaining six must have been found in his rooms[1143]. The leader of a prolonged insurrection must have had many more documents than this meagre number. When he was interrogated about them his reply was, “To his remembrance they [the papers] be in his chamber in his brother’s house and in the chamber in Wressell Castle where he lay; albeit he thinks there be few at Wressell, but they be all in his said chamber or else in some other place in his brother’s house, where his servants left them. Also he thinks there be some in a little coffer which his niece keeps, which is plated with silver [?] ... there unlocked in his brother’s house at Aughton.... Also there be bills of complaint betwixt party and party during that time in a little trussing coffer in his said niece’s chamber, albeit to his remembrance they be but of small effect touching any article of the petitions or requirements, and if he can remember there be any writings in any other place, he shall always declare the same as it cometh to his remembrance.”[1144]

With these ample directions Norfolk caused the papers at Aughton to be seized, but a certain mystery envelopes their fate. On the day of the trial, 17 May, Cromwell wrote to Norfolk for the papers, which he had expected to receive long before. Norfolk’s reply was curiously shuffling. He expressed deep regret that they had not been sent earlier. He had devoted all one night to reading them, with two helpers, and he had believed that they were sent up to London long ago. The bearer of the letter would explain how they had been forgotten. Amid all these apologies Norfolk never said that he was now sending or that he would send the papers[1145]. They have never been discovered, and it is probable that they never left the north. A great many people there must have been interested in their suppression, and Norfolk may have been bribed to destroy them, or they may even have been stolen. In any case they certainly were not produced at the trial.

Aske, like Constable, pleaded not guilty; both were found guilty and condemned to death[1146].

The other prisoners, James Cockerell, quondam Prior of Guisborough, Nicholas Tempest of Bashall, William Wood, Prior of Bridlington, John Pickering of Lythe, clerk, John Pickering of Bridlington, friar, Adam Sedbar, Abbot of Jervaux, and William Thirsk, quondam Abbot of Fountains, were brought up for trial on the same indictment, but were remanded until the next day, Thursday 17 May[1147].

James Cockerell, the quondam Prior of Guisborough, was arrested shortly after Easter by Sir Ralph Evers[1148], and was on his way up to London as a prisoner on 19 April[1149].

The case against him was, first, that about Martinmas Sir Francis Bigod had attempted to restore him to his house[1150]; this was covered by the pardon.

Second, he had read and praised Sir Francis’ book about the royal supremacy since the pardon. He confessed that he had read the book, but denied that he had praised it[1151].

Third, he had heard Sir Francis throw doubts upon the King’s pardon[1152].

The only witness against him who is mentioned was Sir Francis Bigod; the prosecution was conducted by John Baker, the attorney-general[1153]. Cockerell pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty by the jury[1154]. Under the new law of treason the fact that he listened to Sir Francis’ book without arresting the author was sufficient to constitute his guilt.

Orders were sent to Norfolk for the arrest of Nicholas Tempest, to which he replied on 31 March that if Tempest were summoned to London he would go without hesitation, as he was in no fear[1155]. Accordingly he was summoned, together with Sir Stephen Hamerton and the Prior of Bridlington, on 7 April[1156]. It was no wonder that he went without fear, as the sole charge against him was that he had been mentioned in the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication to Sir Thomas Percy, which even the prosecution admitted was “no apparent matter against” him[1157]. It was stated in general terms that he was a “principal doer in the second insurrection,” but of this there was absolutely no evidence[1158]. He was accused of maintaining the Abbot of Sawley, and in particular it was said that he had sent provisions to the monastery, but this was during the first insurrection and ought to have been covered by the pardon[1159]. William Whorwood, the solicitor-general, appeared against him at the trial[1160]. Tempest pleaded not guilty, but was condemned[1161]. It is probable that he owed his death to the feud between his family and the Savilles. Sir Henry Saville had been loyal during the insurrection, and he was now reaping his reward. He had the ear of the Government, and was able to dispose of his enemies who had joined the rebels[1162]. There does not appear to have been any other reason for Nicholas Tempest’s death, as he was both innocent and inconspicuous.

William Wood, the Prior of Bridlington, came unsuspiciously up to London with Nicholas Tempest. There was, however, a little more evidence against him than against his companion. He was accused of giving aid to Lumley during his occupation of Scarborough in the second insurrection. The Prior’s defence was that on hearing the first news of the rising he had warned Matthew Boynton; that he agreed with the neighbouring gentlemen to defend Bridlington against the rebels, that he had called out his own men for this purpose, and that he had endeavoured to prevent them from joining the rebels[1163]. Matthew Boynton did not altogether bear out this story. He said that he had sent to the Prior for help to take Bigod and that the Prior had refused it to him. The Prior replied that he had needed all his men for his own protection[1164].

The Prior’s chief offence had been committed during the Pilgrimage. He had read and praised Friar Pickering’s rhyme beginning “O faithful people,” and had given money to the insurgents[1165]. The King was exceedingly sensitive to ballad criticism, and the Prior’s conduct during Bigod’s rising was sufficiently suspicious to give an excuse for bringing him to the scaffold. The solicitor-general conducted the case against the Prior[1166], who pleaded not guilty, but was condemned[1167].

John Pickering of Pickering Lythe, clerk, seems to have been arrested solely because he was Sir Francis Bigod’s chaplain[1168]. He was imprisoned in the Marshalsea, where on 2 June he made a deposition against the Bulmers, although they had been executed the week before[1169]. No evidence against him has been preserved. He pleaded not guilty, and was condemned[1170], but eventually he was pardoned[1171].

Friar John Pickering, his namesake, was a prominent Pilgrim, and the author of the popular rhyme just referred to. He had attended the council of divines at Pontefract, and had argued against the royal supremacy[1172]. From the first it was known that he had taken part in Bigod’s insurrection, and the King ordered his arrest on 22 February[1173]. For a short while he evaded pursuit[1174], but he was captured and despatched to London before 22 March[1175]. He confessed to carrying messages from Bigod to Hallam, and to informing Bigod about the state of Durham[1176]. In his case, at any rate, there was no miscarriage of justice. He had worked for his cause until the last, and had failed.

Adam Sedbar, the Abbot of Jervaux, was arrested early in March[1177] and sent up to the Tower, where his name may still be seen inscribed on the wall. He was not a popular landlord, and had taken part in the Pilgrimage to some extent against his will. He was examined twice, first on 25 April and again on 24 May, just before his execution. He maintained his innocence to the last, and declared that the insurrection had little to do with religion, but was the work of the discontented commons[1178].

The case against him was as follows:—

(1) About Christmas he had sent a servant into Lincolnshire to report on the state of the country. The servant brought back word that the Lincolnshire men were “busily hanged,” and on this news the Abbot began to plot a new insurrection.

(2) He gave money to Ninian Staveley and others for the purpose of inducing them to rebel.

(3) He ordered Staveley to send a message to Sir Thomas Percy that he must come forward to help the Abbot in the new rising.

(4) When the men of Richmondshire rose, the Abbot sent his servants to join them, and promised them further help[1179].

The Abbot’s defence was:—

(1) He had sent the servant to Lincolnshire only to collect the rents belonging to the Abbey and for no other purpose.

(2) He had ordered money to be given to Staveley and his companion by way of a tip, because they had been trying to find some lost sheep belonging to the Abbey.

(3) He had never sent or ordered a message to Sir Thomas Percy.

(4) He knew nothing about the Richmondshire insurrection until the commons surrounded the Abbey and insisted upon carrying off his servants. As soon as they had gone, the Abbot fled to Bolton Castle, where he remained with Lord Scrope until the tumult was over[1180].

Staveley and Middleton, the witnesses against the Abbot, were men of bad character, and on the whole it is probable that the Abbot’s defence was true and that his only crime was his office.

William Thirsk, the quondam Abbot of Fountains, lived at Jervaux, and was involved in the same charges as Sedbar[1181]. His defence was the same and was equally sound. Both were found guilty and condemned to death[1182].

On Friday 25 May 1537 Sir John Bulmer, Sir Stephen Hamerton, Nicholas Tempest, James Cockerell, the quondam Prior of Guisborough, William Thirsk, the quondam Abbot of Fountains, and Pickering were executed at Tyburn. Bulmer and Hamerton enjoyed the privilege of their knighthood and “were but hanged and headed.” The others suffered the full penalty of the law. Their heads were set on London Bridge and the gates of London[1183].

These executions had, on the whole, a settling effect on the country. The reformers were delighted. The large and powerful class who desired peace above everything were reassured. Most of the conservatives were frightened into silence. But one Yorkshire man called William Moke, who was present at the executions, felt such indignation that when he heard Sir Richard Tempest and Thomas Grice were summoned to London he set out at once to warn them not to come. He foolishly mentioned his object at an inn in Lincolnshire, and as innkeepers were among the best of Cromwell’s sources of information, Moke was at once arrested and brought back to London[1184].

On the day when Sir John Bulmer died, 25 May, another execution took place. Lady Bulmer, or Margaret Cheyne as she was called, was drawn after the other prisoners from the Tower to Smithfield and there burnt. Burning was the ancient penalty for treason in the case of a woman, but it was seldom exacted. The poor women in Somersetshire, for instance, suffered the same fate as the men. The death of Margaret caused some sensation at the time. There is a touch of pathos even in the dry record of Wriothesley’s Chronicle; she was burnt, he says, “according to her judgment, God pardon her soul, being the Friday in Whitsun week: she was a very fair creature and a beautiful.”[1185] At Thame in Oxfordshire her fate was discussed on the Sunday before she died. Robert Jons said that it was a pity she should suffer. John Strebilhill, the informer, answered, “It is no pity, if she be a traitor to her prince, but that she should have after her deserving.” This warned Jons to be careful, and he merely replied, “Let us speak no more of this matter, for men may be blamed for speaking the truth.”[1186]

Froude says, “Lady Bulmer seems from the depositions to have deserved as serious punishment as any woman for the crime of high treason can be said to have deserved.” The depositions show only that she believed the commons were ready to rebel again, and that the Duke of Norfolk alone could prevent the new rebellion. In addition to this she kept her husband’s secrets and tried to save his life. She committed no overt act of treason; her offences were merely words and silence. The reason for her execution does not lie in the heinous nature of her offence, but Henry was not gratuitously cruel, and her punishment had an object. It was intended as an example to others. There can be no doubt that many women were ardent supporters of the Pilgrimage. Lady Hussey and the dowager Countess of Northumberland were both more guilty than Lady Bulmer. Other names have occurred from time to time, Mistress Stapleton, old Sir Marmaduke Constable’s wife, who sheltered Levening[1187], and young Lady Evers. But these were all ladies of blameless character and of respectable, sometimes powerful, families. Henry knew that in the excited state of public opinion it would be dangerous to meddle with them. His reign was not by any means an age of chivalry, but there still remained a good deal of the old tribal feeling about women, that they were the most valuable possessions of the clan, and that if any stranger, even the King, touched them all the men of the clan were disgraced. An illustration of this occurred in Scotland during the same year (1537). James V brought to trial, condemned, and burnt Lady Glamis on a charge of high treason[1188]. She was a lady of great family and James brought upon himself and his descendants a feud which lasted for more than sixty years[1189].

James’ uncle Henry VIII was more politic. He selected as the demonstration of his object-lesson to husbands, which should teach them to distrust their wives, and to wives, which should teach them to dread their husbands’ confidence, a woman of no family and irregular life, dependent on the head of a falling house. This insignificance, which might have saved a man, was in her case an additional danger. She had no avenger but her baby son, and we only hear of one friendly voice raised to pity her death. The King’s object-lesson was most satisfactorily accomplished.

On Saturday 2 June 1537 Sir Thomas Percy, Sir Francis Bigod, George Lumley, Adam Sedbar the Abbot of Jervaux, and William Wood the Prior of Bridlington were executed at Tyburn. Sir Thomas Percy was beheaded, and was buried at the church of the Crutched Friars on Tower Hill[1190]; the others suffered the full penalty and their heads were exposed on London Bridge and elsewhere[1191].

Darcy, Hussey, Aske and Constable were still in the Tower, but with these exceptions the end of the treason trials and executions had been reached.

It is customary at this point to comment on the stolid indifference of the general public to such events, but a study of contemporary depositions shows that this placidity has been rather over-rated. Short of another insurrection, there was no way in which sympathy could be expressed with the sufferers; the lightest words laid a man at the mercy of any chance informer. Yet a perceptible murmur followed the death of the northern men. Thomas Strangways, Thomas Neville, William Moke, Robert Jons, Lord Delaware, Lord Cobham and Lord Montague each in his way uttered a protest which must have voiced the feelings of many others who dared not speak or who escaped detection. The feeling of Scotland was probably expressed by the Bishop of Aberdeen. “Ye have put down many good Christian men,” he said to an English pursuivant, and when the latter protested, added, “ye that are poor men are good, but the heads are the worst.”[1192] The Spanish Chronicler, who seems to have come to England a few years later and depended for his information entirely on hearsay, never even mentions the second insurrection. His story is that the people were pacified by the King’s promises, that as soon as there was no danger of any further rising Aske was persuaded by fair words to reveal the names of those who had helped him, and that the King then threw off the mask and caused all the leaders to be executed[1193].

The attitude of the King’s apologists is also very significant. Knowing that Henry’s conduct was always severely criticised in France, Cromwell wrote to Sir Thomas Wyatt, the English ambassador there, that he must affirm that, although it was true Darcy and the others had been pardoned, yet they had all most ungratefully offended again and were justly sentenced to death. If it had not been for their second treason, the King would never have remembered their former crime[1194]. In 1546 William Thomas wrote a panegyric of Henry VIII in the form of a dialogue between an Englishman and an Italian. The Italian objects against Henry, “After the Insurrection in the North, when he had pardoned the first rebellers against him, contrary unto his promise did he not cause a number of the most noble of them, by divers torments to be put to death?” Thomas of course makes the usual answer, that they had offended a second time[1195]; but the objection shows that the executions were not accepted as just, and were not forgotten, or Thomas would have had no occasion to allude to them. Finally the Yorkshire Chronicler, Wilfred Holme, begins by stating that the pardon was not universal:—

“And to the Duke of Norfolk’s intercession
There was granted a pardon and that general,
From Don to Tweed for their whole transgression
Of all contempts and trespasses as well as things vital
_Nine_ only reserved.”

But he presently adds that later these nine were also pardoned at Norfolk’s intercession[1196].

Considering the conditions of the period it may be said that this was quite a powerful body of criticism to be directed against Henry. He was exceedingly sensitive to public opinion, and although he had still a number of prisoners on his hands the executions ceased. There was a simpler way of disposing of the prisoners which attracted less attention. The plague was raging in London, and a few months in one of the prisons were enough to prevent anyone obnoxious to the King from troubling his Majesty again.

Sir Richard Tempest’s case illustrates this point. On 11 March 1536–7 the Earl of Sussex reported to Norfolk that Sir Richard “was neither good first nor last.”[1197] He was accused of having called out the men of Halifax before 10 October 1536[1198], which was the date of the beginning of the insurrection for the purposes of the pardon. A letter of his to Sir George Darcy was discovered in which he declared that he would take Lord Darcy’s part against any lord in England[1199]. Sir Richard Tempest was summoned to appear in London during Trinity term to answer these charges, or others[1200]. William Moke’s warning never reached him[1201], and on 2 June 1537 Norfolk thanked Cromwell for telling him that the King “did not much favour” Sir Richard[1202]. Tempest came up to London and was thrown into the Fleet. He petitioned Cromwell to be released on bail, because he was in jeopardy of his life, “the weather is so hot and contagious and the plague so sore in the city.”[1203] His petition was disregarded and on 25 August he died. “He willed his heart to be taken out of his body and carried to his own country, to be buried in the place he had prepared for his corpse and his wife’s to lie in.”[1204]

Some prisoners fared better than this. William Aclom’s name is mentioned among those who were accused of treason[1205], but he was not included in the indictment. Leonard Beckwith summoned him before the Court of Star Chamber for robberies committed during the insurrection[1206] and Aclom was imprisoned in the Fleet until his case should be tried. He made himself comfortable there by marrying the sister of the keeper, with the result that Beckwith complained Aclom had “a very small imprisonment.”[1207]

Aclom’s case was exceptional and several of the other prisoners must have died. Thomas Strangways was sick at the time of his arrest, and did not long survive[1208]. Robert Thompson the vicar of Brough-under-Stainmoor was arrested before 24 February. Norfolk proposed that he should be tried and executed at Carlisle, although there was no proof that he had taken any part in the second insurrection, except that he had once prayed for the Pope[1209]. Thompson was sent up to London on 8 March[1210], and was examined in the Tower on 20 March[1211]. He was never brought to trial, but from the Tower he was transferred to the King’s Bench Prison where he found “his body ... what with years, what with corrupt and stinking smells, what with cold and hunger, so sore pricked” that he earnestly petitioned Cromwell for mercy. The petition is endorsed “no” and the vicar was left to die in his miserable prison[1212]. Sir Ingram Percy was imprisoned in the Tower at the same time as his brother Sir Thomas. There was no evidence of any kind that he had offended since the pardon, but he was kept a prisoner in the Tower for about a year. There he carved his name and motto

“Ingram Percy. Sara fidele.” [_I will be faithful._]

He was probably released in November 1538[1213], when there was a rumour that he had fled to Scotland, but this was unfounded. His health must have been completely broken, for he never returned to the north and died in a few months. His will, dated 7 June 1538, was proved at Canterbury on 21 March 1538–9[1214].

The fate of the other prisoners is unknown. Some must have saved themselves by turning King’s evidence, as for instance Staynhus and Staveley. Richard Bowier did so well in this respect that although in March Norfolk had called him “as naughty a knave as any,”[1215] in the summer he was petitioning Cromwell for a grant of monastic lands[1216]. There were others who probably shared the fate of Robert Thompson in prison. A case was carefully made out against William Collins, the bailiff of Kendal, who was certainly guilty[1217]. He was examined in the Tower on 12 April 1537[1218], but after that nothing more is heard of him, saving that in a list of Cromwell’s memoranda, probably drawn up in July 1537, there occurs the item, “for Collins, bailiff of Kendal.”[1219]

It remains, in Henry’s words, “to knit up this tragedy,” and to conclude with the fate of the two principals, Sir Robert Constable and Robert Aske. They remained in the Tower after the trial on 16 May for more than a month. The King made up his mind on 12 June that they should be executed in the north[1220]; Constable, who had held Hull, was to be hanged there in chains, and Aske was to be executed at York “where he was in his greatest and most frantic glory.” It was decided that they should be sent with Lord Hussey to Lincolnshire, in order that their appearance might be a warning to the rebellious people there[1221]. On 28 June the three prisoners left the Tower under the escort of Sir Thomas Wentworth[1222]. At Huntingdon they were delivered to Sir William Parr, who conveyed them to Lincoln, where Hussey was handed over to the Duke of Suffolk. Parr conveyed Constable and Aske to Hull, where they were transferred to the custody of the Duke of Norfolk[1223].

Sir Robert Constable was kept in Hull until the next market day, in order that his end should have all possible publicity. He was asked whether his written confession contained all that he knew about the insurrection. He answered that he had omitted some “naughty words and high cracks which my lord Darcy had blown out,” because he did not wish to repeat them while Darcy was alive. “He was in doubt whether he had offended God in receiving the Sacrament concealing this”; but now he was able to free his mind, “saying that they could hurt no man now my lord Darcy was dead.”[1224]

On Friday 6 July 1537 Sir Robert Constable was brought out to the Beverley Gate for execution. The government chaplain could not bring him to confess that he had committed treason since the pardon, “howbeit his open confession was right good.” The passivity with which prisoners submitted to death in Tudor times is somewhat repugnant to modern ideas. When a man knows that his cause has been overthrown by treachery and his life forfeited by the most cruel injustice, we feel that he ought to make some protest at his death, that his warfare on behalf of right and justice, as he conceives it, ought to be carried on up to the very last breath. Any submission appears like a compromise with evil. In Henry VIII’s reign public opinion was very different. In the first place, as we have seen, the officials who conducted the execution took summary measures to prevent the prisoner from saying anything in his own justification. In the second place an execution was a public amusement, and the people did not want to be made uncomfortable by it. They guarded against mental uneasiness in a very simple manner. If the prisoner submitted to his sentence and acknowledged that he had received a fair trial, they applauded him. There was no need to trouble about a man who was quite satisfied with his own fate. If, on the other hand, he did by any chance protest, they said that he must be a bad man because he died “uncharitably”; therefore he must have deserved his fate, and again there was no need to pity him. The prisoner had usually no power to resist the weight of public opinion, broken as he was in body by most rigorous imprisonment, and in spirit by his long conflict with the most paralysing human vices, injustice, cruelty and selfishness. He was worn out—

“Let the long contention cease,
Geese are swans and swans are geese.
Let them have it as they will,
Thou art tired, best be still.”

There is something noble in this quiet resignation,—something which makes the protests of the modern martyr sound petty and shrill.

In the strength of this resignation died Sir Robert Constable. Norfolk reported that his body “doth hang above the highest gate of the town, so trimmed in chains ... that I think his bones will hang there this hundred year.”[1225] The Beverley Gate was the scene of Hallam’s sacrifice, when he turned his back on safety and chose to share the fate of his comrades. It was fitting that Sir Robert should die there, he who worthily fulfilled his motto:

“As to the ship is anchor and cable,
So to thy friend be thou, Constable.”[1226]

A very different scene of friendship was enacted at his execution. Norfolk entered into conversation with Sir William Parr, saying that he was as much bound to Cromwell as ever nobleman could be to another. Parr replied that he had heard and partly knew how willing Cromwell was to further Norfolk’s interests. The Duke exclaimed, “Sir William, no man can report more than I know already, for I have found such assured goodness in him to me, that I never proved the like in any friend before; and therefore myself and all mine shall be, as long as I live, as ready to do him pleasure as any kinsman he hath.” Parr, as was expected of him, repeated all this to Cromwell[1227]. Such were the professions of the man who afterwards arrested Cromwell in the Council Chamber and “snatched off the order of St George which he wore in his neck.”[1228]

As the plague was raging in Hull, Norfolk left the town immediately after the execution, and conveyed Aske to York, where he was to suffer on the next market day[1229].

Ever since he had assumed his perilous office as grand captain of the Pilgrimage, Aske had been haunted by the nightmare of an execution for treason, from which he had not even the protection of knighthood. His was not that unhealthy type of mind which despises life and seeks for death in any form. He had none of the hysterical enthusiasm which carries some martyrs through their sufferings in a state of happy insensibility. He saw that the death which threatened him was horrible and shameful, but he had the supreme courage to face it, not because he drugged himself with the thought of future bliss, but because it was necessary for the sake of his cause.

Aske was prepared to suffer martyrdom if it must be so, but he did not pretend to desire it. During the rebellion he was heard to say that “he had rather die in the field than be judged like a traitor.”[1230] On his last journey up to London he was accompanied by Robert Wall his foster brother and constant companion. When Wall heard of Aske’s arrest, he cast himself upon his bed, and cried, “Oh my master! Oh my master! They will draw him and hang him and quarter him.” A few days afterwards the faithful servant died of sorrow[1231].

After his trial Aske sent a petition to the King, and another to an unnamed lord, probably Cromwell. He begged that his debts might be paid, and that his lands in Hampshire might revert to the right heirs, as he held them only for life. He solemnly declared that none of his kinsmen took any part in the insurrection, and begged that the King would be gracious to them, and not visit his offences upon them. He requested that “other men’s evidences,” which had been in his charge at Gray’s Inn and were seized with his papers, might be restored to the rightful owners. Finally he begged that his sentence might be commuted to perpetual imprisonment “or else let me be full dead ere I be dismembered.”[1232] On this point the King showed mercy. Aske was allowed to hang “until he died.”[1233]

The day appointed for Aske’s execution was Thursday 12 July, which was market day in York[1234]. Richard Coren, the government chaplain, was with him on the last morning, and received from him a list of the spoils which he had taken and not restored; he begged they might be discharged by the King. As with Constable, the chaplain tried hard to draw fresh details of the rising out of him, and noted, with some annoyance, that both men “thought a religion to keep secret between God and them certain things rather than open their whole stomach; from the which opinion I could not abduce them.” The secret which the chaplain was so anxious to discover must have been the identity of the Pilgrims’ friends in the south. The evidence that they had such friends has already been discussed[1235]. When interrogated on the subject in the Tower Aske replied, “the common report of all that travelled in the south parts was then that if the north parts would come forwards that the countries as they came would take their part and join with them, ... he never received letter nor special message with any promise of help from the South. The gentlemen of Yorkshire adjoining Lincolnshire told him that if any power had come into Lincolnshire before the agreement at Doncaster the commons of Lincolnshire would have taken their part. By such reports the said Aske knew the minds of the countries and none otherwise.”[1236] When this statement is compared with Aske’s letter to Darcy in November 1536[1237], it is evident that he was lying to his examiners. He probably confessed the falsehood to the chaplain, but still refused to betray the names of his allies. He stated, out of confession, that Darcy had told him during the Pilgrimage of his communications with the Imperial ambassador in 1535, which though suspected had not been known to the government before, and he also mentioned Darcy’s intention of sending to Flanders, which had been discovered during the trial.

Two things troubled Aske because they had “somewhat aggrieved” him. One was a speech of Cromwell’s, who “spake a sore word and affirmed it with a stomach,” that all the northern men were but traitors. The other was the fact that Cromwell had several times promised him a pardon, and the King had given him a token of pardon for confessing the truth, yet he was now to die. He said that he had kept these matters secret, and of course the chaplain, in his report to Cromwell, promised never to repeat them. Another secret which Aske had learnt was that Cromwell “did not bear so great a favour to my lord of Norfolk as he thought he did.”[1238] These blunt statements of facts that no one in diplomatic circles ever mentioned caused a slight flutter among those concerned. Norfolk and Cromwell were obliged to exchange more assurances of perpetual amity[1239] and the English ambassador in Brussels wrote on 22 January 1539–40 that Chapuys “professeth with great oaths the King’s good service and true intent in the place he was in, wherein he showed me of the accusation that Aske had made against him, and of his innocence therein.”[1240]

After his confession Aske was brought out of the prison and openly confessed he had offended God, the King, and the world. “God he had offended in breaking of his commandments, many ways; the King’s Majesty, he said, he had greatly offended in breaking his laws whereunto every true subject is bounden by the commandment of God, as he did openly affirm, and the world he had offended, for so much as he was the occasion that many one had lost their lives, lands and goods. After this he declared openly that the King’s Highness was so gracious lord unto all his subjects in these parts that no man should be troubled for any offence comprised within the compass of his gracious pardon.” He was then laid upon a hurdle and drawn through the main streets of York, “desiring the people ever, as he passed by, to pray for him.”

On reaching the Clifford Tower, Aske was made to repeat his confession, and then taken into the Tower to await the coming of the Duke[1241]. All the principal gentlemen of the West Marches had been summoned to attend the execution, and others of Yorkshire including Aske’s brother John, who afterwards had a severe illness[1242].

When Norfolk arrived he pronounced an exhortation[1243]. Aske was brought out upon the scaffold on the top of the tower, and there repeated his confession, “asking divers times the King’s Highness’ forgiveness, my Lord Chancellor, my Lord of Norfolk, my Lord Privy Seal, my Lord of Sussex and all the world, and thus, after certain orisons, commended his soul to God.”[1244] So died Robert Aske, begging the forgiveness of the men who had done him to death. “And all the trumpets sounded for him on the other side.”

NOTE TO CHAPTER XX

Note A. There are three long papers (L. and P. XII (1), 847, 848, 849)
filled with notes on the evidence against Darcy and Aske. We have
taken these to be notes for the prosecution, showing the material for
the various charges brought against the prisoners. It has been
suggested that our view is mistaken, and that these are really notes
for the interrogation of the prisoners, but this seems improbable for
the following reasons:—

(1) Against some of the items a note is made that a question is to be
asked about that particular point, but if they were all intended for
questions, there would be no reason to mark a few in this way. So far
as the notes were used as interrogatories, it was chiefly in the
matter of the dates of various letters mentioned in them, such dates
being added in the margin.

(2) Against some of the items are written such comments as “this shows
him a traitor,” “thereby he committed a new treason.” There could be
no reason for such notes on a mere list of questions.

For these reasons therefore we take the notes to be the general
outline of the case for the crown against Darcy and Aske.