Chapter XV: The Second Appointment at Doncaster

The position and objects of the rebels having been set forth, it is now time to consider the situation from the King’s point of view.

The Pilgrims had stated their grievances definitely, and begged the King to tell them what redress he was prepared to give. In order to discover what answer he would make, it is necessary to go back to the mission of Bowes and Ellerker at the beginning of November. On their first arrival Henry had himself drawn up a reply to the five articles[1], very much on the lines of his reply to Lincolnshire[2], but on the whole milder in tone. The King condescended almost to argument, as for instance in the recital of the names of his Privy Council, now full of noblemen, whereas at the beginning of his reign there had been but two nobles of the old blood, “others, as the Lords Marney and Darcy, scant well-born gentlemen.” Also he demanded the surrender of only ten ringleaders, instead of a hundred, as in Lincolnshire[3]. It is not necessary to go into the details of the reply, however, for in essence it was simply a refusal to listen to any of the rebels’ remonstrances, and it had no external result because it was never sent.

When he wrote it Henry seems to have been under the impression that the Pilgrims were already scattered, and that the affair would be over almost as quickly as the Lincolnshire rising. By the time the reply was received the rebels might be expected to be in a properly submissive frame of mind. As he gradually became convinced that the truce was merely a truce, and not a capitulation, the dreadful suspicion may have dawned in his mind that these traitors might not accept his gracious answer, written with his own hand, in the proper spirit. They might hesitate, argue, even reject it. The very idea of such a humiliation was too terrible to be entertained. The King would not run such a risk. Instead of issuing his reply to the Yorkshiremen, he caused his reply to Lincolnshire to be printed, thus returning an indirect answer to the rebels, without exposing himself. But his labour was not wasted, for he let it be known among the Pilgrims that he had answered their petition, but that he would not as yet allow them to see his reply. His letter to Ellerker and Bowes supplied this omission to some extent, and once the Pilgrims had made a full list of their grievances, as a substitute for their first general petition, the King’s answer became quite insufficient. The stages by which Henry was reluctantly forced to acknowledge that he was obliged to treat formally with the Pilgrims have already been traced. On 14 November he had resolved to send Norfolk and Fitzwilliam to negotiate with them[4], and the first set of instructions was drawn up for their direction. They were to be provided with a safe-conduct under the Great Seal, “a proclamation implying a pardon,” and the King’s original answer. On their arrival at Doncaster they were permitted to arrange an interview with Darcy and three hundred others. They were to induce this company to come to them merely on their own promise of safety if possible, but if they could not be persuaded that this was sufficient security they might be given the safe-conduct. On this point of the safe-conduct the King was extremely sensitive. He seems to have felt that to grant one was a kind of recognition of belligerency; also it hurt his pride to acknowledge that any of his subjects were not wholly at his mercy. Apart from this we perhaps may see here one of the extraordinary freaks of his conscience. He would have had no hesitation in ordering Suffolk to seize the Pilgrims who had come to negotiate with Norfolk on the security of Norfolk’s word, but he would prefer not to violate his own safe-conduct. Except for this matter there is not much of importance in these first instructions to Norfolk. Henry was not going to give way on any point. Darcy and his company must be persuaded and exhorted by the Duke to submit themselves entirely to the King, to make no further question concerning their petitions, and to accept the pardon which the King was willing to extend to all but a few persons specially named. If the rebels would conform themselves absolutely and surrender the aforesaid ringleaders they might be permitted to receive the King’s answer “in a much more certain sort than the articles were proponed so that all indifferent men must be content.”[5] If they would submit, Norfolk was to administer to them the oath of the Lincolnshire men; if they refused he was to gain as much time as possible by discussion, and at the first favourable opportunity he must break off the negotiations and straightway attack the rebels[6].

With these instructions Norfolk and Fitzwilliam set out. On 27 November the King wrote to them at Leicester. The rebels’ attitude was still very threatening, and he seems to have thought that there was little prospect of peace, but he was still determined not to yield a single point; he would not give hostages for Aske; he would not grant fourteen days’ truce for the appointment, “our instructions treat of a time to be won by policy, and not of an abstinence by pact, which would give them time to fortify themselves.”[7]

These letters and instructions must have been very painful reading for Norfolk and the Admiral. It was abundantly evident by this time that there was no chance of winning over Darcy, and as far as could be discovered the other leaders were equally unapproachable. For a short while the royalists entertained some hope of winning over Aske, owing to the report of a spy. This man was called Knight, and was a servant of Sir Francis Brian[8]. Knight went into the rebels’ country about 14 November[9], to learn what he could about their strength. When he was in York, his appearance aroused suspicion, but he escaped by saying that he was a servant of Sir Peter Vavasour. On 15 November, however, he was recognised as Brian’s servant and taken before Aske. With great presence of mind and some humour Knight told the captain that Sir Francis had sent him in pursuit of his chaplain who was a thief[10]. Aske sent Knight back to his master with a letter to request a description of the missing chaplain, as he was determined not to protect bad characters[11]. It was Knight who told Sir Francis that Aske had only one eye. He had returned to his master by 18 November[12]. Apparently Knight had had some communication with Sir Peter Vavasour, whose name he had used as a protection, although Sir Peter was with the Pilgrims[13]. Knight told Sir Francis Brian that, according to Sir Peter, Aske had been heard to say that some men who were not suspected were worse than he, and that he would gladly accept the King’s pardon. Brian repeated this to Sir Anthony Browne, who sent the report on to Norfolk and Fitzwilliam. The King’s deputies reached Nottingham on Wednesday 29 November, and there they wrote to Sir Peter Vavasour[14]. They stated that it had been represented to them that Aske was wavering. If he would, he could do more service than a greater man, and Sir Peter must urge him to throw himself on the King’s mercy. In token of his goodwill, let him come to the meeting at Doncaster without hostages, bringing with him this letter, which should be his safeguard[15]. This application to the supposed originator of the roundabout story demolished it altogether. Vavasour wrote back to say that there was no truth in the report that Aske was wavering. He himself dared not sign his letter, lest it should be intercepted. Thus all hope from this quarter vanished[16]. The reports from the north showed no signs of giving way on the part of the rebels. On the contrary, it was doubtful whether they would consent to treat at all. If they were really so much excited and so confident it was quite evident that they would not humbly accept any answer which the King might choose to make.

It may be asked why the royalists should fear the prospect of battle, when they had at their backs London, the King’s treasure and the King’s fleet. Norfolk and the nobles with him were honestly on Henry’s side, but the particular sting lay in the fact that they would be fighting for Cromwell. They would be actually the protectors and maintainers of the man whom they most detested. While they were risking their lives and spending their money in his hated cause, he would be at the King’s side, enjoying the King’s favour, and probably poisoning the King’s mind against them. In the circumstances it is not surprising that Norfolk, in particular, was ready to do almost anything rather than fight. The state of his feelings may be judged by the fact that between 24 November and 2 December he found courage to write to the King laying before him the situation at its very worst[17]. The letter seems to have been carried by Sir John Russell. It is lost, but there was a passage in it very irritating to Henry, in which Norfolk declared that everything depended on the weather; the waters of the river were falling and he could trust neither to Trent nor to Don[18]; moreover he enclosed the evidence of sixty gentlemen that “other parties were not to be trusted unto.”[19] These other parties were probably the leaders of the Pilgrimage, Darcy, Latimer and the rest, and the report was that they would not be persuaded to betray their cause and come over to the King, as he hoped.

Henry was furiously angry at the contents of this letter. His situation with regard to Norfolk was indeed peculiarly galling to a man of his pride and temper. Norfolk for the moment was indispensable; he might not be a very good general, but he was the only one Henry possessed. Until the rebellion was suppressed the King could not afford to quarrel with him. But, while conscious of his own helplessness, Henry did not trust Norfolk in the least. He did not believe that the desperate letter contained a true account of the rebels’ position; in his eyes it was all a trick to frighten him into coming to terms. Yet Norfolk could not be superseded, because there was no one to take his place, and he could not be forced to insist that the rebels should either fight or accept Henry’s terms, because if Henry threatened him too boldly it was very probable that he would join the rebels himself. In the replies which were drawn up on 2 December, the King put a great restraint upon himself. Nevertheless the private letter which he sent to Norfolk was sufficiently alarming. Henry complained that Norfolk’s desperate reports agreed neither with the information of spies nor with each other. In the first campaign he had particularly declared that he could hold the line of the Trent, and had attributed all his ill success to Shrewsbury’s advance to the Don. Now he said that he could hold neither Don nor Trent, and yet it was evident that Shrewsbury’s advance had saved a large district for the King[20]. From Newark he had written that he would esteem no promise made to the rebels nor think his honour touched in the breach of it[21], but nevertheless he had come to terms with them, disbanded his army without any exploit, and favoured their petitions at court. “We have now declared to you our whole stomach, as to him that we love and trust, which if you take as it is meant we doubt not but you will thank us, and by your deeds cause us eftsoons to thank you.”[22] This was on the whole a temperate letter, but there is an undercurrent of restrained fury running through it which must have been very alarming to Norfolk. Such a rebuke might have goaded a loyal man into fighting immediately, or might have frightened a cautious man into going straight over to the rebels; but Henry knew Norfolk’s character. The only emotion which it aroused in him was an intense desire to dispose of this tiresome business and return to court, where his “back-friends” must be intriguing against him.

At the same time the Privy Council received news that, according to letters from Sir William Musgrave, Tynedale and Reedsdale were loyal, Cumberland and Westmorland not ill-disposed, Lord Clifford was holding Carlisle and the Earl of Cumberland Skipton[23]. They thought therefore that Norfolk had only to deal with Yorkshire. They wrote to him to engage the rebels in conference while Suffolk prepared to attack them from the east, and Shrewsbury and Derby on the west. If the rebels could not be persuaded to accept the limited pardon and give up their ringleaders, he was to attack at once, for the King would on no account grant a general pardon. They enclosed the King’s letter, but assured Norfolk that whatever it might contain the King was as gracious to him as ever he was in his life, from which it appears that they were rather nervous about the effect that Henry’s remonstrance might have[24]. Sir John Russell also carried back a secret letter from the King to Shrewsbury. It is a high tribute to the old Earl’s character that all parties trusted him; even the King placed more reliance on him than on Norfolk, although he now showed his confidence by asking him to do a dirty piece of work. In his reports Shrewsbury, whenever possible, had spoken a good word for his old friend Darcy. Henry now commissioned him to enter into secret negotiations with Darcy and Aske. He was not to allow the rest of the Council to know anything about it, but if he could by any means persuade them to come over to the King, he might give them the pardons, made out, one for Darcy, and the other for Aske, which Russell had in his possession. “The dates which are left blank you have power to fill up, but you must do so in such sort that there appear no diversity of hands.” Was forgery one of the ordinary accomplishments of a Tudor nobleman? Russell also took a set of articles which Shrewsbury was empowered to declare if no terms were made with the rebels, but no copy of these articles has survived[25].

On the very day that these letters were despatched, Saturday 2 December, Norfolk wrote again to the King from Welbeck, still more emphatically setting forth the impossibility of inducing the rebels to submit unconditionally[26]. Sir Francis Brian carried this letter, and Suffolk also sent his opinion, which agreed with Norfolk’s, that if the King would not grant a free parliament and a general pardon there was no hope of coming to terms[27]. Sir Francis reached the court, at Richmond, on the night of Sunday 3 December[28]. After he had made his report the King could no longer doubt the gravity of the position. It was possible to believe that Norfolk was exaggerating, but Suffolk and Sir Francis himself were entirely loyal and their information must be taken seriously. Although he had urged both Suffolk and Norfolk to fight, Henry did not want to provoke actual warfare unless he could be quite certain of winning. Since there was no alternative between concession and battle he reluctantly gave directions for a new set of instructions to be drawn up[29]. In the beginning of this document he again complained of the desperate contents of Norfolk’s letters. He reproached all the council of his army for neglecting to seize and fortify the Don, and for allowing the rebels to muster in such force at Pontefract without making corresponding levies. They were on no account to treat unless the numbers were equal on both sides,—either the Pilgrims must disband, or the King’s troops must be increased. If this matter could be adjusted Norfolk, Fitzwilliam and the others were empowered to hold the conference. As usual the King held forth at great length on the reproaches that they must heap on the rebels for their disloyalty, ingratitude, etc., but if all their eloquence did not avail to make the Pilgrims accept the limited pardon, Norfolk was to say that his commission extended no further, but that if they would state clearly what they wanted he would venture to prolong the truce and himself lay their petition before the King. He was to persuade them that they only wanted a general pardon and a free parliament; they must be made to sign these articles and to undertake not to molest the King on any other point. Then Norfolk might make a truce for six or seven days, _as if to send to the King_, and at the end of this time he might present to them the general pardon which Sir John Russell would carry with him when he delivered these instructions. At the same time Norfolk might give them the King’s promise that a parliament should be held, beginning on the last day of September 1537 at any place the King might appoint. If they insisted on any other articles, besides the pardon and the parliament, Norfolk was to make a truce for twenty days, to let the King know all particulars, and to send secretly to Derby to summon all the forces of Cheshire and Lancashire, to Suffolk to prepare Lincolnshire, while he himself got ready to seize all the fords of the Don until the King could make his preparations for advancing against the rebels in person[30]. The idea of prolonging the truce while secretly levying forces seems to have been suggested in the first place by Norfolk in a letter from Newark that has not been preserved. In a postscript the King replied to Norfolk’s suggestion and to another letter from Nottingham. Although he approved of the general scheme, he would give no definite orders for further levies, as it would be so expensive. He promised to send three more safe-conducts, in addition to the one drawn up on 30 November which Norfolk had already received[31]; the new ones were made out for sixteen, twenty and forty days respectively, as he did not know what length of time might be agreed upon, and if a blank safe-conduct were sent, it would be visible that the date had been filled in by another hand[32]. Commissions of lieutenancy were also sent, made out to Norfolk and Shrewsbury, and to Norfolk and the Council. The King concluded by complaining again of their desperate letters. If they must send him so much bad news, he said, they might send some good news to balance it, or at least suggest some “honest remedy” for the evil. There is one other small but significant point: in the original draft orders are given for the payment of the men now with Norfolk, namely the “bands” of Sir John Russell, Sir Francis Brian, Sir Anthony Browne and Richard Cromwell, but the names of Sir Francis Brian and Richard Cromwell are struck out. Sir Francis had just brought up letters from Norfolk, and the rebels had refused to treat while Richard Cromwell was in Norfolk’s company. The King silently yielded this point without any argument or blustering[33].

With these instructions Henry sent a letter to Suffolk[34]. After briefly telling him that he was prepared, in case of extremity, to grant a free pardon and a parliament to the rebels, “although we thought the granting of such a pardon would only encourage others,” he gave orders that Suffolk must make up his companies to eight thousand men, and prepare to attack at once on receiving the word from Norfolk. The first plan was that on the alarm he should seize Hull and advance on York, sending word to Lord Clifford to set out from Carlisle and meet him. But this scheme was completely cancelled and he was ordered not to attempt to take Hull, but to await further advice. Letters and proclamations were enclosed to be sent by sea to Berwick and thence distributed to Lord Clifford, Sir William Musgrave, Edward Aglionby (of Carlisle), Sir Thomas Clifford, Sir Reynold Carnaby and the towns of Berwick and Carlisle. Suffolk received a commission of lieutenancy joining him with Norfolk and Shrewsbury[35], and a pardon and oath to be proclaimed and administered in Marshland and Holderness[36].

The Privy Council wrote to Norfolk at the same time, but their letter only hints at the King’s change of attitude[37]. These Privy Council letters seem to have been composed to sweeten the King’s more outspoken despatches. This one begins with warm praises of Norfolk and his colleagues. The King was making plans in case of war, but the Privy Council contemplated peace. If, as they did not doubt, Norfolk brought the affair to a satisfactory conclusion, the King was pleased with the Duke’s plan that he should immediately advance into Yorkshire, with a good train of noblemen and gentlemen, to administer the oath; but Norfolk must send further particulars, as the King’s charges had been great, and expenses must be kept down. They sent the Ten Articles and copies of the circular to the bishops[38], to be declared to the people. “There remains one thing to be considered which the King has much to heart and we all no less desire—the preservation of his Grace’s honour, which will be much touched if no man be reserved to punishment.” There is a certain humour in the earnestness with which the Council beseech Norfolk to “reserve” some vile persons, even if only a very few, and among them, if possible, Sir Robert Constable[39]. Sir Robert had offended the King mortally by saying that the truce had been broken when Edward Waters was sent to Scarborough. Henry, in his usual daring fashion, had retorted the reproach on the rebels in his instructions; Norfolk was to complain of the taking of Edward Waters as an innovation during the truce[40].

The Council also mentioned that the King had written to the Earl of Northumberland to come up to London “if nothing chance to him in the mean season,”[41] rather a sinister reservation. The Earl had sent a ring as a token to the King at the beginning of the month, through Suffolk’s hands[42]. They added that Norfolk would doubtless see that the Earl’s brethren did no displeasure, a task somewhat beyond his power[43].

Such were the final instructions despatched to Norfolk before the conference. They did not arrive till Wednesday 6 December, and would have been too late if the meeting had not been deferred for a day.

On Saturday 2 December Norfolk was at Welbeck writing desperate letters to the King. On Sunday 3 December he was at Hatfield, and with him were his half-brother Lord William Howard, Sir William Fitzwilliam and Sir Anthony Browne[44]. He had summoned Shrewsbury to join them, but Shrewsbury that day sent word that he was so ill that it would be impossible for him to reach Doncaster before Wednesday[45]. Probably Lancaster Herald arranged to defer the meeting when he went to Pontefract that eventful Sunday. Shrewsbury’s letter was written in the morning, and after dinner Norfolk mentioned in a letter to the King that the meeting would not be till Wednesday. The principal object of the letter was to give warning that William Steward of Scotland was on his way to France and had passed right through the rebel country. It would therefore be well to stop him, as he might be carrying messages from the rebels to the King of Scotland. Norfolk reported that the nobles at Pontefract were in half captivity to the commons, who were very numerous and wild, but he was not without hopes of winning over some of the gentlemen[46]. This no doubt is an allusion to the Archbishop’s sermon and the tumult in the church. Norfolk must have written on the report of Lancaster Herald. It is rather difficult to discover exactly what arrangements the Herald made for the first meeting on Monday. Robert Aske said afterwards that he delivered the King’s safe-conduct for ten knights and esquires, each accompanied by three servants[47]. On the other hand Fitzwilliam, writing on Monday 4 December, told the King that the gentlemen were coming with only two servants each and “upon our honours without your Grace’s safe-conduct.”[48] Fitzwilliam would be the better authority, as Aske may easily have forgotten the exact particulars, if it were not possible that Fitzwilliam was trying to soothe the King, whose angry letters of 2 December had just been received. They seem to have arrived early on Monday morning before the meeting, and Norfolk and Fitzwilliam answered them at 8 A.M. In these replies therefore there is no record of what passed. Norfolk wrote to the King and to the Council. Both his letters are full of protestations of loyalty; he insisted that he had only spoken the plain truth all through, as it was his duty to warn the King of the danger in which he stood. Doubtless he had mismanaged affairs, but that was due to his old age and feebleness, unfit as he was for the great duties which the King had forced upon him. He hoped now that they would not send him north, as he had suggested, because he wanted to go home[49]. The letters are very picturesque but they contain no information about the negotiations with the rebels.

After despatching these letters from Hatfield, Norfolk must have gone to Doncaster to meet the Pilgrims’ representatives. Sir Thomas Hilton and his companions had received full instructions from the Pilgrims’ council. They were (1) “to declare to the Duke of Norfolk and other lords that our meeting of our part is meant of assured truth without any manner of deceit or ‘male ingyne’: (2) to receive the King’s safe-conduct, and to deliver our safe-conduct for the assurance of the lords there: (3) to entreat of our general pardon, including all persons who in heart, word or deed aided the federation in this our quarrel, and that we be not mentioned in the pardon, nor in any records as rebels and traitors: (4) that Richard Cromwell nor none of his kind nor sort be at our meeting at Doncaster: (5) to receive the King’s answer by the declaration of the lords, and to certify the very intent thereof to us here: (6) to know what authority the lords have to promise: (7) to demand what pledge they would deliver for the captain: (8) if the particulars are required, then to descend to divers particulars.”[50]

To all this Norfolk had no very truthful reply, particularly if it is correct to suppose that he did not receive the King’s final instructions until Wednesday. He could not honestly answer to (1) that he came to the meeting “without any manner of deceit or ‘male ingyne,’” seeing that he knew his object was to gain time until the King’s troops were ready to make an attack. On that very day Suffolk was writing to ask for guns, gunners, arrows, etc., saying that he was making musters and every day expected the King’s two ships[51]. With regard to (2) Norfolk’s orders were if possible to withhold the King’s safe-conduct and to persuade the Pilgrims to come to the meeting on no security but his own word. He was not authorised to promise a general pardon, as the King in his last letters[52] had insisted that some of the rebels must be reserved for punishment[53]. He could indeed satisfy them with regard to (4) as Richard Cromwell had already withdrawn. But as to (5) he had particular instructions not to reveal the King’s reply until the rebels had submitted; and though he was to assure them that it was quite satisfactory he must have known that this was far from being the case. As to (6) he had no authority to promise anything but the limited pardon, while he had been particularly forbidden to give a pledge for Aske. Though he was permitted to go into particulars, it was only that he might persuade the Pilgrims not to trouble the King with them, the one point on which his orders were most emphatic being that he should take every means to detach the gentlemen from the commons[54].

At this point there comes a complete break in the contemporary letters and reports. No account of these first negotiations at Doncaster survives. Aske alluded to the meeting once or twice, but always said that as he was not there he could not be certain of what passed. He knew, however, that Robert Bowes delivered a copy of the articles to the Duke. The principal business of the meeting was probably to arrange for the final conference. It was decided that the appointed three hundred should come to Doncaster next day, and there choose forty of their number, twenty gentlemen and twenty commons, to treat with the Duke[55]. The King’s safe-conduct seems to have been sent, although there is no absolute statement to that effect, but it does not appear that any hostage was given for Aske[56]. Perhaps the matter of the safe-conduct was compromised on those terms. When this had been decided the ten gentlemen returned to Pontefract.

However Norfolk may have endeavoured to gloze the matter over, it could not be denied that the preliminaries had been very discouraging. The commons realised this, and on Tuesday they were uproarious. They threw the blame on Archbishop Lee, rightly thinking that his wavering had encouraged the royalists, and there was another tumult in the church, where the Archbishop was performing service[57]. In order to prevent a breach of the truce, it was agreed that Lord Neville, Lord Lumley and Lord Conyers should remain at Pontefract to control the commons, while Lord Scrope, Lord Latimer, Lord Darcy and Aske, with the three hundred knights, esquires, gentlemen and commons, rode to Doncaster[58]. During these two days the clergy had been drawing up their articles, which were not completed and accepted until Tuesday afternoon[59], and it must have been after the close of the short December day that the three hundred rode across the bridge to the Grey Friars’ house in Doncaster. Next morning, Wednesday 6 December, they chose ten knights, ten esquires and twenty commons to go to the conference with Norfolk. Robert Aske was their leader, and was empowered to speak in the name of all. This being determined, the forty set out for the house of the White Friars, where Norfolk and his council were prepared to receive them. By this time the King’s last instructions must have arrived, which gave Norfolk something to base the treaty upon.

When the Pilgrims came into the presence of the council, Aske made three low obeisances. Then he and all his companions fell on their knees and humbly begged for the King’s free pardon and gracious favour, notwithstanding anything which they might have done contrary to the laws of the land. These respectful preliminaries might have satisfied Henry, but the subsequent proceedings did not follow the lines which he had laid down, for without any representation of the King’s grievances they passed immediately to the discussion of the articles. Here again Norfolk seems to have disregarded the King’s desire for repeated delays. He had obtained authority to grant a full and free pardon to all, and to promise that the King would hold a free parliament; he thought, very reasonably, that no good would result from disguising the fact, as the more the negotiations were prolonged the wilder and more suspicious the commons would become[60].

On this basis, therefore, the representatives of the King and of the Pilgrims argued the particulars of the petition. About the first article, for the suppression of heresy, no difficulty could be made[61]. The King was as anxious for this as his subjects, and the arrest of several heretics had already created a good impression[62]. Norfolk at this point could use with some effect a passage in the King’s answer to the men of Yorkshire in which he promised to punish any members of his council or others, who could be proved to be subverters of the law, and he would be free to suppress the King’s addition that nobody would be able to prove such a thing[63]. The King’s circular to the bishops was well received. In it the bishops were ordered “to commend all the honest ceremonies of the Church in such wise that they be not contemned,” and were forbidden to retain in their service any person who spoke of the ceremonies “contentiously or contemptuously.”[64] They were to watch the preachers vigilantly, and silence any who were indiscreet, even if they had the King’s licence, and they were to seek out and apprehend any priests “who have presumed to marry.” Darcy afterwards forwarded a copy of this letter to Lee, saying that in it “all true Catholics may joy.”[65] The rest of the articles dealing with religion might all be referred to the coming parliament. The royal supremacy, the tenths and first-fruits, and the rest had all been granted by act of parliament. It would be highly unconstitutional for the King to annul them merely on his own authority, but what one parliament had done another could undo. It seems that the Pilgrims assented to this, in all but one point. They insisted, however, that the suppressed abbeys must be allowed to stand until their case had been brought before parliament again. Norfolk had no power to grant this, but the Pilgrims firmly refused to give it up.

Leaving that aside for the moment, the other articles may be considered. With regard to constitutional reforms, the repeal of the various statutes included under that head might be left to the coming parliament, and it will be observed that by this device Norfolk would be able to avoid the discussion of such dangerous topics as the treason laws and Mary’s legitimacy. Even the punishment of Cromwell, Audley and Rich might possibly take the form of an impeachment, and here Norfolk’s obvious sincerity must have helped him. It must have been evident that he wished for Cromwell’s downfall as much as the Pilgrims did. He would be able to make the most of the withdrawal of Richard Cromwell, and he might represent that the King’s eyes had been opened by this insurrection to Cromwell’s enormities. It was, however, impossible to defer the consideration of when and where the parliament should meet and how it should be composed. With regard to the date, Henry had at first proposed next Michaelmas[66], which was too far distant to satisfy the Pilgrims, but in the end he left the matter open, which enabled Norfolk to pretend that a near date would be appointed, while it gratified Henry to feel that it really rested entirely with him. As to the place, he was determined to name that himself. The question of additional representation for Yorkshire and kindred subjects were fully argued at Doncaster; but no definite promise was made[67]. Finally Norfolk was able to show them a full and free pardon without exceptions. All the other grievances, legal and economic, might safely be referred to the parliament.

In all this conference it is evident that the greatest importance attached to Norfolk’s representation of the King’s attitude. If he had spoken the strict truth, he would have said that Henry was very angry, that the few concessions which he had made had been forced from him by sheer necessity, that he was absolutely determined not to yield an inch more, that in particular he would not give up the monasteries or the supremacy, and that he was extremely anxious to punish the leaders of the rising. There is no reason to believe that Norfolk was so tactless as to reveal any of this. He probably encouraged the Pilgrims’ idea that Henry had been so far misled by Cromwell and that witch Anne Boleyn that he did not realise what he had been doing. The Pilgrimage had opened his eyes, and for this he was grateful. But it would be undignified in him to grant petitions which were backed by force. Only let the Pilgrims submit and disperse, and the King, now restored to his right mind, would do all they desired, if they would proceed by entreaty and constitutional means. As the Pilgrims regarded Norfolk as almost one of themselves, his words would have all the more weight. But on the one point they were still unpersuadable; the monasteries must be allowed to stand. Norfolk knew perfectly well that the King would never agree to this, but he had received a significant hint from his master as to how he should act in these circumstances. In his letter of 2 December Henry had reminded him: “you said you would esteem no promise you should make to the rebels nor think your honour touched in the breach of it.”[68] The implication is clear:—“Why do you trouble me about making concessions to the rebels? Promise anything they demand for yourself, but leave me free to repudiate it afterwards.” Finding that there was no other way of dealing with the problem of the monasteries, Norfolk and the Pilgrims finally agreed upon a compromise. The abbots must surrender their houses to the King’s commissioners, but they should then be restored by the King’s authority until the next parliament, which was to settle their fate[69]. At the end of the day Aske and his companions returned to the rest of the three hundred at the Grey Friars with these terms: a free pardon, the promise of a free parliament, and the provisional restoration of the abbeys. After laying the proposed treaty before them, Aske, at Norfolk’s request, rode back to Pontefract the same night to communicate the terms to the assembly there[70].

Meanwhile Norfolk and the rest of his council wrote to the King, stating the terms they had made, and honestly declaring that they did not believe there would be any possibility of peace unless the King would give up the abbeys, at any rate temporarily[71].

Early next morning, Thursday 7 December, Aske sent the bellman about Pontefract to summon the commons to hear the result of the negotiations[72]. There were about three thousand in all, who gathered at the market cross, where Aske announced the terms that had been made. When they heard of the King’s most liberal and free pardon, all raised a shout of joy. Under the impression that the terms were ratified by acclamation, Aske set out for Doncaster again, accompanied by Lord Neville. As soon as they reached the town they went again to Norfolk, but while Aske was declaring the result of his mission a letter came from Lord Lumley, who was in command at Pontefract, to warn them that affairs there had changed for the worse. Now that they had had time to discuss the terms, the commons were not so well pleased with them, and the leaders of their own rank, such as Hallam and Pulleyn, who were always suspicious of the gentlemen, were encouraging them to give the alarm and raise all Yorkshire again, if they were not shown the King’s pardon under seal, and if the lords would not agree to the continuance of religious houses and promise that the parliament should be held at York. This news plunged the negotiations into confusion again. After some debate, Aske suggested that he should return to Pontefract and lay the proceedings before the commons once more. His offer was accepted. When he arrived at Pontefract his eloquence was effective and by night he had persuaded everyone that the terms were perfectly satisfactory[73]. To complete the work he sent back to Doncaster a request that Lancaster Herald would bring the King’s pardon. Norfolk wrote gleefully to Suffolk that all was going well at Pontefract[74]. The herald arrived with the pardon the same night[75]. Possibly he was accompanied by the three hundred lords and gentlemen, for next day, Friday 8 December, they all assembled on St Thomas’ Hill and heard the pardon read. Then the commons dispersed to their houses, and the gentlemen rode to Doncaster once more. When they again presented themselves before Norfolk, Aske gave an account of all that had happened, and Norfolk then proceeded to rehearse the King’s grievances, which in Henry’s opinion ought to have come first. Norfolk required to know how the King’s rents were to be collected, to which it was replied that they were ready for him. He also demanded the restoration of Edward Waters and his ship. The Pilgrims were prepared to redeliver everything that had been taken except the money, which had been divided among the captors. Several other small points were similarly adjusted. After this Aske knelt down and humbly besought the whole assembly that he should no longer hold the office or be called by the name of captain. When they had assented to this he tore off the badge of the Five Wounds which he was wearing, and all the other Pilgrims did the same, crying “We will all wear no badge nor sign but the badge of our sovereign lord.” Finally Norfolk gave orders for the restoration of the grantees of the monasteries, and the conference broke up[76].

It is an interesting point to consider whether the Pilgrims believed that the prisoners in Lincolnshire would be included in this pardon. They had so far prevented any executions from taking place there, but although they probably hoped that they might be able to obtain mercy for the Lincolnshire men the Pilgrims were not in a position to treat on their behalf. They had deserted Yorkshire and made terms for themselves; now they must abide by these. Darcy, however, made a daring effort for them. On 15 December he wrote to Suffolk that he would not allow Waters’ ship to be delivered unless the appointment at Doncaster was observed in Lincolnshire, and his intervention had the effect of preventing any executions for the time[77].

The end of the second conference at Doncaster is the end of the Pilgrims’ success. They had allowed the issue to be changed from a trial of strength to a trial of diplomacy, and though Henry might have been overcome by force, he had not his match as a diplomat. The leaders, who were on the whole rather old-fashioned and simple-minded, were baffled without the slightest difficulty and Henry’s triumph was almost ridiculously easy and complete.

There is one peculiarity of the conference at Doncaster which strikes the modern reader instantly, namely, that the terms do not appear to have been written down. It was later a part of Henry’s plan of action to slur over the second conference as much as possible. Not a single interrogation about it was addressed to any of the prisoners, and the only information on the subject is derived from a few chance remarks, and from the brief account which Aske drew up for the King while he still believed that the terms would be observed. In these references there is absolutely nothing to show that the Pilgrims either signed any document themselves, or demanded any written copy of the terms from Norfolk. Henry had suggested that the leaders of the Pilgrimage should be required to sign a document pledging themselves to demand nothing from the King except a free pardon and a free parliament, but it seems that this paper was never drawn up.

The omission was not quite so surprising at that date as it would be now, for Yorkshire gentlemen were still accustomed to transact most of their business by word of mouth, and writing was unfamiliar to their ideas. But Darcy and Aske must have known how important it was to have the King’s terms in black and white. We can only conclude that the absence of a written agreement was due to Norfolk’s skill and prudence. It seems to have been agreed on both sides that the terms were only provisional. Norfolk might explain that he would go and represent to the King what he had promised and what the Pilgrims had demanded, and that he would bring back the King’s answer in full legal form under the Great Seal. That would be the real treaty. Until that was drawn up there was no need for writing. It will be shown in the next chapter that Norfolk’s speedy return with the King’s confirmation of the terms was fully expected by gentlemen and commons alike, and that his delay produced fresh agitation. At present the only one of the King’s concessions which the Pilgrims actually saw in writing was the pardon. They did not see the promise of the parliament, which the King offered to concede in his instructions to Norfolk; neither did they see any written promise concerning the monasteries, for which Norfolk had no authority.

The only report of the proceedings at the time occurs in a letter to Lady Lisle, wife of the Governor of Calais, from her agent in England, John Husee. With the delightful inconsequence of a contemporary he writes “news has just come that the Northern men have obeyed the King’s proclamation, and submitted to mercy. The wine and herrings are come, and will be delivered to Mr Sulyard.”[78] This, it will be observed, was the report circulated in London by the King on Monday 11 December. Needless to say, it was not true. The northern men had not submitted to mercy, but had made terms. The difficulty lies in discovering what those terms were. In order that the narrative should not be interrupted, we have stated above as an actual fact the terms which we believe were made, but it is now necessary to give the grounds for this belief. There is no doubt about the pardon and the parliament. The problem lies in the agreement as to the monasteries. About this the evidence is conflicting. In the first place, on Wednesday night, when Aske returned to Pontefract to communicate the terms to the commons, Norfolk wrote to the King that it would not be possible “to appease the commons unless the King consented to the standing of the abbeys in those parts which are to be suppressed by act of parliament.”[79] This looks as though he had made some provisional promise, which he was trying to persuade the King to ratify, but unfortunately his letter has not been preserved. The quotation is from the King’s reply. Before Norfolk’s return to the north, “the King examined him in the gallery of his opinion in causes of religion,” and Norfolk promised that no default should be found in him, “in the suppression of the Abbeys and treatment of the traitors therein.”[80] There would have been no reason for the King to examine Norfolk if he had not made some unwelcome concession on the subject, which he repudiated “in the gallery” before the King.

Secondly, there is Aske’s narrative drawn up for the King. In this account he described only his individual acts; as the progress of the negotiations must have been reported to the King by Norfolk, Aske says hardly anything about them[81].

His statements are (_a_) that on Thursday morning he proclaimed at the market cross at Pontefract “the said order (taken at Doncaster) and ... the knowledge of the King’s most liberal and free pardon.” The commons received the news joyfully.

(_b_) After he had set out for Doncaster again the commons became dissatisfied and demanded to see the King’s pardon and also “that the abbots, new put in of houses suppressed, should not avoid their possession to (until) the parliament time,” and that the parliament must be at York.

(_c_) When the news of this reached Doncaster, Aske, after consulting with Norfolk, went back to Pontefract and persuaded the commons “to abide the said order at Doncaster.”[82] He seems to have had a good deal of difficulty, for Marmaduke Nevill reported that the commons were so much excited that the gentlemen thought “we should be fain to divide, calling all them that were disposed to take the King’s most gracious pardon to come to a side.”[83] This may mean that they thought of putting the treaty to the vote. In the end on Friday morning all formally accepted the terms[84].

(_d_) The last business transacted by Norfolk on Friday was to “take order for the putting in of the King’s farmers.”[85]

(_e_) After the conference Aske took part with Sir Ralph Ellerker and Sir Robert Constable in “the putting in of the King’s farmers into the abbeys of Haltemprice and Feriby.”[86]

In all this there is no definite statement of what was the order taken at Doncaster, but the general impression which the narrative gives is that the monks were to be turned out and the farmers restored. The third witness in the matter is John Dakyn, and he makes a definite statement, the only definite statement, be it observed, that exists. Dakyn, it will be remembered, was one of the ecclesiastics at Pontefract. He was an elderly, cautious man, very anxious to avoid committing himself. During the conference William Collins, the bailiff and one of the representatives of Kendal[87], came to him and asked his advice concerning the monastery of Cartmell. All the monks had been restored by the commons, but the prior would not go back[88]. Dakyn promised to write to him on the subject. On Saturday 9 December, after the conference was over, Dakyn left Pontefract for York. He did not write to Cartmell as yet, because he wished to have definite information as to what had been determined. As he had been at Pontefract all the time, he might have been expected to know, but probably he had had no opportunity of learning the details from any of the leaders and he wanted to be quite certain. Collins came to him at York for the letter, and Dakyn, having no real doubt on the subject, wrote on Sunday 10 December to the priors of Cartmell and Conishead[89] that by the King’s consent all religious persons should re-enter suppressed houses again till further direction was taken by parliament[90]. Collins sent these letters to the monasteries[91]. Dakyn went home to his own parish of Kirkby Ravensworth[92]. Within a week of his arrival Robert Bowes and Sir Henry Gascoigne requested him to go and explain to the canons of St Agatha’s at Richmond that they must “be put forth by the King’s authority and taken in again by the same authority until the next parliament.” The prior agreed and it was done. “This manner of putting out and taking in again was commonly spoken of to be true, after our return from Pontefract, in all those parts as well with gentlemen as others.”[93] Robert Bowes was one of the principal men at Doncaster, and must certainly have known all that passed, and Dakyn’s evidence shows decisively that he believed that the monasteries were to make a formal surrender, but were to be allowed to stand.

In the fourth place there is the evidence of William Collins. Clarencieux King-of-Arms arrived at Kendal on 22 December, bringing the King’s pardon. The farmers of the priory of Cartmell and the restored monks were quarrelling over the rents and corn, and when they heard of the herald’s arrival two of the monks came to him and begged him to write an order for them. The herald would not write himself, but he directed Collins to write, which he did, in the herald’s presence, to the following effect: “Neighbours of Cartmell, so it is that the King’s herald hath made proclamation here that every man, pain of high treason, should suffer everything, as farms, tithes, and such other, to be in like stay and order concerning possessions as they were in time of the last meeting at Doncaster, except ye will of your charity help the brethren there somewhat towards their boards, till my lord of Norfolk come again and take further order therein.”[94] All the monasteries of the north had been restored before the last conference at Doncaster, and putting together Dakyn’s and Collins’ statements it appears that the monks were to be left unmolested, but that the rents, etc., were to remain in the hands of the farmers and grantees of the monasteries, who should, however, make an allowance to the monks.

Finally it appears that as soon as he returned home Sir Thomas Hilton, who, like Bowes, had been prominent at Doncaster, insisted on restoring the Friars Observant of Newcastle[95].

From the evidence of all these persons, the majority of them being men who had every opportunity of knowing the truth, it seems certain that Norfolk promised at Doncaster that the monasteries should be allowed to stand, subject to an agreement with the farmers of them, until the promised parliament met.

Norfolk had no authority for making any such promise, and in the absence of any proof of his actual words, it is not fair to accuse him of treachery. It is not likely that he pretended to have the power which he did not possess. In all probability he only promised to make suit to the King that the monasteries should stand, although he may have held out strong hopes that the King would grant his suit, while he knew very well that the King would do nothing of the sort.

The first news of the terms made Henry exceedingly angry[96]. A letter was at once drawn up addressed to Fitzwilliam and Russell, in which he scolded them roundly. He was amazed that they could not achieve the thing that the King most desired, namely, the reservation of certain persons for punishment. As for the monasteries, so long as he wore the crown of England he would never give them up. Various persons from the north had been interrogated by the King[97], in particular Steward, the Scot of whom Norfolk had given warning[98], and they all reported that the commons of the north were weary of the rebellion, penitent and ready to submit unconditionally. He would have been a brave man who dared to say otherwise, when face to face with Henry. The King desired Russell and Fitzwilliam to send a detailed account of all the negotiations. It is very much to be wished that they had done so, but in all probability the King’s letter was never sent. It is undated and endorsed by Wriothesley “The minute that was devised to have been sent to my lord Admiral and Master Russell,” which implies that it never was despatched[99]. When it was drawn up Henry must have expected that the negotiations would last at least a week, as he had suggested in his instructions. The minute cannot have been written before 8 December, as it alludes to a letter from Norfolk to Suffolk dated Thursday 7 December and forwarded to the King[100]. The despatch of the King’s letter may have been prevented by further letters from Doncaster, announcing that the conference was over, or it may be simply that the King had changed his mind. As soon as his first outburst of rage was over, he must have become aware of the great advantage which he had gained. He had been thwarted for the moment, which his passionate self-will could hardly bear, but cunning was really more in accordance with his tastes than violence. A very little reflection would show him that it only required time, patience and diplomacy for him to recover everything that he had yielded for the moment, and to recover it, moreover, without the risk and expense of war. Therefore his angry letter was cancelled, and the King gave no sign as to his opinion of the terms made at Doncaster. He did not ratify them, but on the other hand he did not repudiate them. One of the heralds who was sent to the north with the pardons, as we have seen, encouraged the people to believe that the monks were to remain in their houses for the present. It is here that a charge of treachery will fairly lie. Henry had no intention of keeping the unauthorised promise which Norfolk as his representative had made, but he did not repudiate it. He permitted and encouraged those whom it most concerned to believe that he regarded the promise as binding, until he found a favourable opportunity for denying it altogether, and punishing those who had trusted him.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XV

Note A. In the Letters and Papers this passage runs “if we shall trust
either to treat or do, we shall be deceived,” but in the State Papers
it is printed “either to Trent or to Don” and a reference to the
original shows this to be correct.

Note B. These instructions are undated and are printed among the
letters of 2 December[101]. They seem, however, to belong to 4
December. Possibly they were first drawn up on the 2nd but held back
and modified after Norfolk’s letter from Welbeck was received.

Note C. Henry attached great importance to the point that there should
be no diversity of handwriting in the pardons and safe-conducts; the
reason for this anxiety is not apparent.

Note D. The question of the hostages aroused a great deal of interest
at the time. The Spanish Chronicler says[102] that the King sent as
hostages for Aske the Earl of Surrey, Lord Darcy, the Earl of Rutland,
Lord William Howard Norfolk’s brother, the Marquis of Exeter and Lord
Thomas Howard Norfolk’s second son. This account of the insurrection
is interesting as showing the rumours current in London, but it is
quite without authority as evidence of what occurred.

Note E. This date is written and then cancelled. In his letter to
Suffolk[103] the King mentions Michaelmas as the date of the
parliament, but in the end the date was left open.