Chapter XVII: Hallam and Bigod (1)

The leaders of the Pilgrimage undertook an impossible task when they promised at Doncaster to keep the north quiet until Norfolk’s return. When a large region has been in open insurrection for three months, it cannot be restored to order at a word. It is true that the gentlemen did not realise then what they were required to do. They expected Norfolk to return within a month, and they expected that the King would make allowance for the difficulties of their position. They were mistaken in both points. Norfolk’s return was delayed, and Henry was prepared to exact from the north a state of immaculate order to which few counties in England ever attained, even in times of peace. As soon as the Pilgrims allowed themselves to be put off by vague promises their cause was lost. Even if they had exacted a definite agreement with proper guarantees at Doncaster, it would probably have made no difference in the end. Nothing but force could have induced Henry to observe such a treaty. Even if the parliament which they desired had met, it is unlikely that it would have achieved anything. Henry was no Charles I. With Cromwell’s help he knew how to manage parliaments. The Pilgrims’ one chance of success had lain in battle. The two parties were very evenly balanced. Henry had a better general and on the whole better supplies, but the Pilgrims had the advantage in numbers and enthusiasm, and were on their own ground. They did not choose to push the matter to fighting, and they failed.

It is impossible to regret their failure now. If England had been rent by a religious civil war at the very outset of modern history, as the Reformation has rightly been called, she must have been seriously, perhaps fatally, crippled, and prevented from taking her place among the greater European powers. No country which had undergone the strain of the Hundred Years War, followed by the Wars of the Roses, could have borne in succession a third war more terrible than either of these. The Pilgrims cannot be accused of weakness when their decision was so truly patriotic, but it was fatal to themselves and their cause. Once that decision was taken the result was inevitable. Henry would observe no treaty with rebels when he could safely repudiate it. The rising of Hallam and Bigod gave him a good excuse, but before that excuse was offered he had already found others. The disturbance at Beverley, the deer-stealing at Rylston, the tithe riots in Cumberland, the restoration of the monks at Sawley—anything was a sufficient pretext for declaring that the King was no longer bound by the terms, and for bringing the champions of the old faith to trial and execution; but the catastrophe was precipitated by an ally of the most fatal kind, a political theorist.

During the progress of the first rising a glimpse has been caught from time to time of Sir Francis Bigod. As might have been expected from his previous history, he was by no means in sympathy with the Pilgrims. His attempted flight and capture have already been described[267]. The band of commons who took him all unconsciously did their cause a great disservice. Once involved in the rising Sir Francis quickly grew interested. The movement gave him plenty of scope to indulge in his chief passion, which was to reform monasteries. He was far from acting in the spirit of Cromwell’s commissioners. The welfare of the abbeys was his real object, and he made no profit for himself, but his views were in every way peculiar. His activities began about Martinmas (11 November 1536) at the monastery of Guisborough[268].

The resignation of James Cockerell, Prior of Guisborough, and the appointment of a new prior by the visitors have been mentioned above[269]. As usually happened in these cases, the new prior accused the old one of having embezzled some of the revenue of the monastery[270]. Sir Francis Bigod acted in this matter on behalf of Cockerell, who is always called the Quondam of Guisborough[271]. Having thus a footing in the affairs of the monastery, he made up his mind that the new prior had not been chosen formally according to the laws of God and the old custom, and that the house ought to be reformed. He wrote to consult the Earl of Westmorland on the subject, pointing out that the new prior had been put in only by Cromwell’s authority and that the people did not consider him a true prior. His proposal was that to quiet the country the new prior’s accounts should be made up and the prior himself expelled. Then another prior might be chosen “by virtue of the holy comentie and by the assent of all the religious brethren belonging to their chapter.”[272] In consequence of these disturbances Sir John Bulmer was ordered by the council of York to regulate the affairs of Guisborough, but the prior was not deposed[273].

Bigod himself was not at the council of York, but before it met his brother Ralph told him that the clergy were to assemble and decide “what they judged to be reformed concerning the faith and for heresy.” After the council was over Aske sent Sir Francis as a captain to Scarborough, probably to look into the affair of Edward Waters. Hallam came from York to Scarborough and reported what the council had resolved upon[274]. Sir Francis attended the great meeting at Pontefract[275], and like several of the other gentlemen, he wrote down his opinion on the various questions which were under discussion, “the title of Supreme Head, the statute of suppression, and the taking away the liberties of the Church.”[276] His “book” made no particular impression at Pontefract. It is never mentioned by the leaders, while the commons looked upon him as one of Cromwell’s agents, and he was even in danger of his life[277]. Sir Francis, however, had naturally an author’s pride in his own work. It seems to have been much longer and more elaborate than the books of the other gentlemen. The views which it expressed were entirely individual and did not conform to the standards either of Rome or of the government. The author attempted to define “what authority belonged to the Pope, what to a bishop, and what to a king, saying that the head of the Church of England might be a spiritual man, as the archbishop of Canterbury or such, but in no wise the King, for he should with the sword defend all spiritual men in their right.”[278]

The Quondam of Guisborough read the book, and, by Sir Francis’ account, praised it highly, “saying no man could mend it, and he durst die in the quarrel with Bigod,” and when the author promised him a copy, he said that “he would make as much thereof as of a piece of St Augustine’s works.” The Quondam admitted that he had seen the book, but he denied that he had commended it. He took exception to one passage, at any rate, in which Bigod asserted that the King held his sword immediately from God. The Quondam pointed out that “we hold opinion that the King has his sword by permission and delivery of the Church into his hands and not otherwise.” Bigod seems to have accepted the correction[279].

The Quondam of Guisborough was not Bigod’s only literary friend among the regular clergy. Sir Francis was also a frequent visitor at the monastery of Malton in Rydale, where he was told of a prophesy by the Prior, William Todde[280]. It was at the Prior’s table that he first heard the rumour that Cromwell was plotting to marry Lady Margaret Douglas and to become the King’s heir[281].

Sir Francis also lent a hand in the disordered affairs of the monastery of Watton, which was, like Malton, a Gilbertine priory[282], containing both monks and nuns to the number of between three and four score[283]. The flight of the Prior appointed by Cromwell and Aske’s intervention to help the deserted religious have already been mentioned[284]. The absconding Prior had previously held the same office at St Katherine’s, Lincoln[285]. During his brief term at Watton he had made himself universally disliked; “while he was there he was good to no man and took of Hallam 20 marks where he should have been paid in corn when God should send it; and he gives many unkind words to his tenants in his court, more like a judge than a religious man.”[286] The monks afterwards declared that it was only the commons who were discontented with the Prior. He had put Hallam out of a farm, and Hallam in revenge during the insurrection brought a number of his soldiers to the monastery, just as the brothers were sitting down to dinner, and ordered them to elect a new prior[287]. The priors of Ellerton and St Andrew’s, York, were both present, and Hallam advised the canons to nominate the former, Dan James Lawrence[288]; if they did not obey him, Hallam threatened to plunder their house and make a new prior himself. Thereupon the canons nominated the Prior of Ellerton, but only as a form to satisfy Hallam[289]. Lawrence never acted as prior, and the canons wrote to Aske to beg him to appoint a new one for them[290]. By his advice they accepted the sub-prior as the prior’s deputy[291].

Hugh Langdale, Hallam’s friend, attended his new master the Prior on his flight to London, leaving his wife behind him[292]. A little before Christmas she wrote to tell him how much she had suffered during the rising and to beg him to come back to her. Her letter was carried by Thomas Lownde of Watton Carre, who returned about 26 December. Lownde met Hallam in a house by the Priory gates at Watton and Hallam asked him for the London news. Lownde said that “my lord prior was merry,” to which Hallam rejoined, “no more of that, for an ye call him lord any more thou shalt lose thy head.” He wanted to know what was the opinion of the south about the insurrection. Lownde answered that some Nottingham men with whom he had ridden from London to Stamford, told him that they wished the northern men had come forward, “for then they should have had me to take their parts.” Also when he was in London at a “corser’s” [calcearius, shoemaker] house between Cow Cross and Smithfield, the good man said to him, “Because ye are a northern man ye shall pay but 6_d._ for your shoes, for ye have done very well there of late: and would to God ye had come to an end, for we were in the same mind that ye were.”[293]

The sub-prior of Watton, the confessor of the nuns, the vicar of Watton, and Anthony one of the canons, were all heard to say that there would be no real restoration of religion so long as the King held the title of Supreme Head, and that the only way to force him to lay it down was by a new insurrection[294].

In this hot-bed Hallam’s plans had been flourishing, but at the Beverley meeting on Tuesday 9 January 1536–7 he received a check, and he returned to Watton with the intention of waiting at least until he saw the King’s next move.

While Hallam was being persuaded to trust the King, Bigod was becoming more and more convinced that it would be folly to do so. On the same Tuesday 9 January he set out from Mulgrave to ride to York “for a matter between the Treasury and the old prior of Guisborough.” He had with him a copy of the King’s pardon, which he had been considering very seriously. In discussing it with his friend the Prior of Malton, whom he visited on his journey, he remarked that the pardon would enrage the Scots, who were called “our old ancient enemies.” The Prior, in return for the pardon, showed him a copy of the Pilgrims’ articles, and Sir Francis gave the Prior’s servant two groats to copy it and send the copy after him[295]. He left Malton for Settrington, where he expected to meet his brother Ralph. Next day, Wednesday 10 January, he arrived at Watton, still on his way to York, and went to Hallam’s house. They visited the Priory together, and once more urged the canons to elect a new prior[296]. Bigod drew up a form for them, in which the present Prior was referred to as “the late prior of St Katherine’s, Lincoln.”[297] The canons thought that this was not respectful; they sent to Beverley for a notary and had another document drawn up, which appointed James Lawrence to be their prior[298]. The canons gave this paper to Wade a bachelor of divinity dwelling near by, in order that they might show the new nomination to the commons if there were a fresh insurrection; but they protested that they did this through fear of the commons, and not with any serious idea of deposing their prior[299].

Hallam and Bigod both supped at the Priory. Bigod produced the King’s pardon and explained his doubts about it. He pointed out that it did not run in the King’s name, but “began as another man’s tale, ‘Albeit the King’s Highness,’” and that it was in the third person throughout, from which he judged that it was really the work of Cromwell[300] who was higher in favour than ever[301]. In Bigod’s opinion a pardon in that form would not prevent a sheriff from imprisoning a man and seizing his lands and goods; besides it was dated two days after it had been read[302]. He also objected to the statement in the pardon that the King had charge of his subjects both body and soul. Sir Francis declared that the King should have no cure of his soul. Hallam, the sub-prior Harry Gill, and two of the canons sat together over the fire while Sir Francis expounded his views to them, but at this point he drew Hallam aside into a window and they talked privately together for a long time[303].

Sir Francis read to Hallam his book concerning the supreme head of the Church. From that they passed to the question of Hull and Scarborough. Everyone in the countryside, said Bigod, was convinced that the towns ought to be held by the commons until the meeting of the parliament. Moreover he did not believe that the Duke of Norfolk would do any good when he came. It would be better and safer either to drive out of the north any general sent by the King, or to capture Norfolk as he ascended from the plain of York into the hills about Newborough and Byland, and to make him take their oath. Hallam, by his own account, hesitated to attack Norfolk[304]. Others, however, said that they had heard him threaten, if the Duke were captured, to strike off his head[305]. Leaving Norfolk out of the question, Hallam was soon persuaded to revive his former scheme of capturing Hull and Scarborough. Bigod told him that all the Dales, Swaledale, Wensleydale and the rest, were rising, that Sir Thomas Percy was coming forward from Northumberland, and that the East Riding had no choice but to rise as well[306]. It is impossible to say how much of this Sir Francis believed himself, but there had been disturbances and bills posted on the church doors in the Dales, and Northumberland had never been quiet since the last insurrection.

Sir Francis Bigod stayed at the Priory of Watton that night, but Hallam went home. Next day, Thursday 11 January, Hallam took William Horskey into his confidence. After repeating to him all that Sir Francis had said, he laid before him their plan of campaign. Hallam was to surprise Hull, while Sir Francis seized Scarborough; they would then meet at Beverley and march to take Pontefract. The day for the attempt was not yet appointed[307].

Bigod left Watton on Friday 12 January and rode to Settrington. On Saturday 13 January he sent a servant to bid Hallam come to Settrington. Hallam arrived on Sunday 14 January, and found that Ralph Fenton of Ganton and “the friar of St Robert’s” were also there. Bigod told them that he had news of a rising in Durham and another in the west country. Lord Latimer had fled, and the commons had spoiled the property of Archdeacon Franklin and Robert Bowes, whom they accused of betraying them[308]. Dr John Pickering had sent news of the attack on Lancaster Herald at Durham[309]. Fenton and Hallam both agreed that Yorkshire must rise too[310].

Hallam returned to Watton on Monday 15 January. That day he was visited by three Beverley men, Richard Wilson, Roger Kitchen, and John Francis a baker. Francis was a quiet man with dangerous friends. The day before, Wilson and Kitchen had asked him to go with them “as it were a-mumming,” to break up an assembly of “the most ancient men” of Beverley, who were making merry at Catherell’s house, “because they were of a contrary faction in a dispute concerning the privilege of the town.” Francis refused to go with them, and when on Monday they invited him to accompany them to Calkhill he was suspicious, but they assured him that their only object was to make merry with Hallam, and Francis agreed to go with them. They met Hallam at Hutton Cranswick, and all drank together at Mr Wade’s[311] house. Francis observed that Wilson and Hallam talked together privately for some time. When the Beverley men went out to get their horses, Hallam came with them. On the way to the stable he told them that Sir Francis Bigod had sent the friar of St Robert’s to Durham to find out whether there was a new rising. Francis did not like this conversation, and to change the subject he asked Hallam to sell him “half a score of wheat.” Hallam replied that he would pass through Beverley on his way to Hull next day, and they could talk over the bargain then. After Francis had mounted, the other three went into the stable together and talked for a long time, until Francis called to them to come. Wilson and Hallam in the stable revealed their plans to Kitchen. Wilson promised to bring “a great sort out of Beverley” as soon as he heard that Hallam had set out to take Hull. Hallam asked Kitchen to be ready on receiving his message to go to Holderness and desire Richard Wharton, John Thomson, the bailiff of Brandsburton, William Barker and William Nicholson to meet Hallam in Hull and drink a quart of wine with him. At last the Beverley men set out for home with the impatient Francis[312].

While Hallam was drinking and plotting in Mr Wade’s house at Hutton Cranswick two messengers sent by Sir Francis Bigod had arrived at Hallam’s home. Not finding him there, they went to the Priory, where they gave a man 2_d._ to bring Hallam to them. The messengers represented themselves as Bigod’s servants, but one of them was Friar John Pickering in disguise[313]. Before long Hallam came to the Priory and they delivered to him a letter from Sir Francis. He sent news that Durham and Richmondshire were up, that he would attempt to seize Scarborough next day, and that Hallam must take Hull at the same time and meet him at Beverley on Wednesday[314].

All this was read aloud and supplemented by the messengers in the presence of the sub-prior, the Prior of Ellerton, Dr Swinburne and other canons of Watton assembled in a chamber called the “Hal sied” [Hall Side]. After the reading of the letter, Hallam picked out two of the convent servants, Anthony Wright or West and Lancelot Wilkinson, to accompany him to Hull next day, and directed the sub-prior to send them and a third, Clement Hudson, and to provide them with money, but they were not to bring horses or harness. His men were to enter the town in small groups of two or three, like market folks; they were to go to the market, and begin bargaining for goods until they heard Hallam cry, “Come hither to me all good commons!” whereupon they must join him and take the town. After making these arrangements Hallam left the Priory. The canons were naturally somewhat fluttered, but either from fear or from sympathy they obeyed Hallam[315], and the cellarer, Thomas Lather, delivered to the chosen men 3_s._ 4_d._ to last them for two days[316].

There was no time to be lost if Hull was to be taken next day, for it was already nearly 7 o’clock at night[317]. Taking up his station at the Priory gates, Hallam began to despatch messengers. He sent Andrew Cante and John Lowrey, labourers of Watton, to Kitchen at Beverley to bid him deliver the message that he knew of in Holderness. John Prowde was despatched to bid William Horskey, Philip Uty and Thomas Lownde to be at Beverley next day by sunrise. All were directed to meet Hallam at Beverley next day as soon as they had done their errands[318].

Early next morning, Tuesday 16 January, the little band set out from Watton in the dark in order to be at Beverley by sunrise. Hallam wore “a privy coat of fence made with many folds of linen cloth rosined, and a privy skull on his head, a sword and a buckler.”[319]

At William Cooper’s house in Beverley Hallam met Uty, Horskey and Langdale; he read Bigod’s letter to them and sent them on to Hull to open communications with some friends in the town[320]. Although these men were Hallam’s chosen confederates, they were not very reliable. Langdale said that “what he did was for fear of his life, for Hallam was so cruel and fierce a man amongst his neighbours that no man durst disobey him.”[321] Both Langdale and Horskey distrusted Sir Francis Bigod, while Uty knew Hallam but slightly. As they rode to Hull together their hearts failed them, and they resolved to betray Hallam to the magistrates. After some discussion they decided to warn William Crockey, Robert Grey and Stephen Clare of Hallam’s plot[322]; they would ask them to inform the mayor without mentioning who had given the warning.

The first person whom they visited was Crockey, the deputy-customer. Their pretext was that they wanted to buy a tun of wine, which had been ordered by the sub-prior of Watton[323]. It was now about 11 o’clock, and as Hallam had intended to be in Hull by 9[324], the informers knew that they must make haste. Langdale and Uty put Horskey forward, and he, “abashed and trembling,” took Crockey apart. Their embarrassment alarmed the deputy-customer so much that he exclaimed, “What news? How do ye all in your parts?” Horskey answered, “Naught[325], for we were commanded yesternight about midnight, pain of death, to be here this day, and for to take the town, as I suppose.”[326]

Crockey at once went and told Robert Grey, who said “he trowed all would be nought, wherefore let every man do his best.” Not finding much support in this enigmatic remark, Crockey went next to Mr Johnson, an alderman, who took him to the mayor’s house. There they found that they had been forestalled, as “one Fowbery” was already laying the matter before the mayor[327]. This man was John Fowbery of Newbold, a servant of the Earl of Surrey[328]. He had taken part in the first insurrection[329], and was in Hallam’s confidence[330]. By the time Crockey arrived, Fowbery had disclosed everything to the mayor and aldermen[331]; and they all went to their houses to arm and prepare to take Hallam[332].

Meanwhile the plot was going badly. On entering Hull Hallam met William Nicholson of Preston, who had often promised, in the case of a fresh rising, to join him with 100 or 200 men from Holderness. It was Nicholson who had suggested the plan of smuggling men into Hull on market-day as if to attend the market, and Hallam had sent Kitchen to warn him of the attempt the night before[333]. By ill-luck Nicholson had set out for Hull before Kitchen arrived[334]. He had not received the message and therefore had brought no men. Hallam told him to see what friends he had in the town who could be trusted in the matter[335]. The bailiff of Snaith had sent to Hallam after Christmas to let him know that if he made any fresh attempt all the commons of that part would join him, and it would seem that Hallam had sent a message to Snaith which also miscarried, but this is not certain.

Thus Hallam found himself with no support but his own small band. The attitude of the commons in the town was hostile, and he resolved to abandon the enterprise. He told the men who were with him to go home, mounted his horse, and rode out of the Beverley Gate to a watering-place beside a windmill. Looking back, he saw the town gates were “a-sparring” [being fastened]. At the watering-place he met Marshall, clerk of Beswick, and John Fowbery the traitor. Marshall, who really sympathised with Hallam, exclaimed, “Fie! will ye go your ways and leave your men behind you[336]?” The situation was a very tempting one. Hallam was mounted and free to join Bigod, or, if all else failed, to make his way to Scotland. He had warned his men, and the town gates were on the point of being shut. To go back was certain death. This history contains many examples of weakness and betrayal, but from time to time they are redeemed by some act of high courage and faith, such as that which Hallam now achieved. He turned and rode back to Hull.

The traitor Fowbery played his part to the last; exclaiming, “And I will turn again to seek for some of my neighbours that be there too,” he rode ahead of Hallam to the gates, where two of the aldermen, William Knolles and John Eland, were giving orders[337]. These were the aldermen who had surrendered Hull to the rebels[338]. Fowbery called out, “An you look not shortly of your man Hallam, he will subdue you all.” Eland answered, “I know him not,” and Fowbery said, “Yon is he that is on horseback in the yeatts [gates] and ye may see the people assemble hastily till him.” Eland grasped Knolles by the arm, crying, “Go way, for we will have him,” and they went up to Hallam together[339]. He, from outside, asked them to let his neighbours come out before they barred the gates[340]. The two aldermen came out and asked him his name; he answered, “My name is Hallam.” Knolles said, “Then thou art the false traitor that I look for.”[341] The aldermen were standing one on each side of his horse, and at the word they both attacked him with their daggers, but his coat of fence saved him. There was a general struggle. Hallam’s neighbours and the city guard both ran out to help their respective champions. Knolles was knocked down, but rescued by his men, and seized Hallam’s companions. Eland clung to Hallam, and, striking at him, cut his bridle rein. He was afraid that Hallam would escape, but the horse fell into the Busse ditch, and Hallam was forced to dismount. He drew his sword and “many stripes were taken among them.” They “bickered together” until they were both badly wounded and Hallam was at length captured[342]. There were only two men with him, Thomas Water and John Prowde[343]. As the prisoners were being led through the streets, William Nicholson attempted to create a diversion in their favour. He cried to the guards, “Jesus! What mean ye? Will ye murder me now?” and there was another fray, in which Nicholson was wounded and captured[344]. So ended the disastrous attempt to recover Hull.

Bigod’s letter declared that he had received positive news that the commons of Durham and Richmond intended to rise on 16 January, the day on which the simultaneous attempts on Hull and Scarborough were made. These messages have not been preserved, but Sir Francis acted on them at once, and on Monday 15 January his servants were despatched in every direction to call out men for the new rising. Besides the two who went to Watton, one was sent to Bigod’s friend the Prior of Malton, to order a muster there next day[345]. Another was sent to Durham with letters for Auckland, Staindrop, Richmond and the city of Durham, enclosing a new oath[346]. This man arrived at Brancepeth on Wednesday 17 January[347]. On the same Monday Bigod summoned to him William Levening of Acklam, and caused him to take the new oath. He told him the news from Durham and Richmond, and ordered him to send a summons to a muster at Borough next day to all the neighbouring constables[348]. At night the beacon at Settrington was lighted[349].

The nearest gentleman was George Lumley of Thwing, who was just recovering from an illness. Richard Simpson, the constable of Thwing, came to him as he lay in bed on Tuesday morning, 16 January, with news of the summons and the beacon. Lumley, his wife, and the constable, were all thrown into great perplexity, as they did not know whether this was a muster on behalf of the King or against him. At first Lumley thought of sending a servant to make inquiries, but in the end he decided to go himself, “for an if the assembly were for the King, ... it was his duty to be there. And if it were about any new business of commotion, then he thought it was best for him to go thither also for to stay them, or else it might be laid to his charge afterward that seeing there were few gentlemen else in that quarter that he did not endeavour himself to stay them.... Thinking at the least way, if he could do no good among them, he would do no harm.” He set out, therefore, taking with him two servants[350].

At Borough they met a body of men, who conducted them to an assembly of about thirty or forty persons on a little “howe” [hill]. These men had no idea why they were summoned, but had come in response to the beacon. Presently Sir Francis Bigod appeared at the head of about a hundred horsemen. George Lumley tried to draw him aside to question him, but Bigod said that “he would commune with no man of any thing but that the whole company should be privy unto.” Thereupon he mounted the hillock and addressed those who had assembled. George Lumley afterwards gave the substance of his speech in a medley of oratio recta and oratio obliqua:—

“He declared to the people that there were many causes that they had
need to look upon, or else they should be all shortly destroyed; for
the gentlemen of the country (said he) had deceived the commons. And
said that the Bishopric and Cleveland were up already and would go
forward to have their articles fulfilled, trusting that you will not
now leave them in the dust seeing they took your part afore, and it is
in the defence of all your weals. For my Lord of Norfolk is coming
down with twenty thousand men to take Hull and Scarborough and other
haven towns, which shall be our destruction unless we prevent him
therein and take them before. And so I and my fellow Hallam purpose to
do, for we are both appointed to meet at Beverley this night and so to
raise the country and go forward to Hull[351]. And I think it
necessary that you command Mr Lumley here to go with you to
Scarborough to take the Castle and town and keep the port and haven
from any such as should come in there to be your destruction, as I
have written a letter to the bailiffs of Scarborough that they should
help thus to do with the aid of you the commons that I shall send unto
them.”[352]

Sir Francis then brought out two letters, which he gave to Lumley, charging him on pain of death to deliver them. One was to the bailiffs of Scarborough, and the other was to the dowager countess of Northumberland to request her to summon Sir Thomas Percy to come forward with all his men, with the promise that Bigod and the commons would restore his lands to him. Lumley opened and read the second letter, and then despatched one of his servants with it.

After giving him the letters, Bigod continued his speech:

“Also ye are deceived by a colour of a pardon, for it is called a
pardon that ye have and it is none but a proclamation.”

At this point he read aloud a copy of the pardon, and then went on:

“It is no more but as if I would say unto you, the King’s grace will
give you a pardon, and bade you go to the Chancery and fetch it. And
yet the same is no pardon. Also here ye are called rebells, by the
which ye shall knowledge yourselves to have done against the King,
which is contrary to your oath.”

The commons, who had always been suspicious of the pardon, were very much moved by this. One cried out, “The King hath sent us the fawcet and keepeth the spigot himself!” while another said that “as for the pardon it makes no matter whether they had any or not, for they never offended the King nor his laws, wherefore they should need to have any pardon.” After the clamour had died down, Bigod proceeded:

“A parliament is appointed as they say, but neither the place where
nor the time when it should be kept is appointed. And also here is
that the King should have cure both of your body and soul, which is
plain false, for it is against the Gospel of Christ, and that will I
justify even to my death. And therefore if ye will take my part in
this and defend it, I will not fail you so long as I live to the
uttermost of my power; and who will so do assure me by your hands and
hold them up.”

Thereupon all present held up their hands with a great shout and cried that they would strike off the head of any man who did not do as they did. A tall man dressed like a priest, who had come with Bigod, said that “if they went not forward, all was lost that they had done before, for all was but falsehood that was wrought against them.” He was probably one of the ever-zealous friars of Knaresborough. Bigod promised the commons that “the fat priests’ benefices of the south that were not resident upon the same and money of the suppressed abbeys should find the poor soldiers that were not able to bear their own charges.” He told Lumley and the commons who were to remain with him that he had already summoned the wapentake of Dickering to join them[353].

Then Sir Francis rode away with his horsemen in the direction of Hull, and Lumley was left to occupy Scarborough with about forty men. His position was a very awkward one. Bigod’s speech must have made a great impression even on Lumley, as he was able to repeat so much of it three weeks afterwards, and it had roused intense enthusiasm among the commons. As Sir Francis disappeared they exclaimed, “Blessed was the day that Sir Francis Bigod, Ralph Fenton, John Hallam and the friar of St Robert’s met together, for an if they had not set their heads together this matter had never been bolted out.” They were ready to be led on any enterprise, but unfortunately George Lumley was far from being ready to lead them. In character he bore a marked resemblance to one of Sir Walter Scott’s weaker-minded heroes, such as Edward Waverley; he was a well-meaning but ordinary young man, quite unequal to the task of making up his mind, or assuming a grave responsibility. He had hesitated before setting out, and his vague hopes that it might prove to be a muster for the King, or that he might induce the commons to disperse, were now at an end. In all the previous course of the rebellion he had never done anything on his own initiative. At the present moment, although his intentions were loyal to the King, he found himself with a single servant surrounded by forty excited and resolute countrymen. The number was not great for taking a fortress, but it was too many for him to persuade or command to depart. Accordingly he submitted to circumstances and set out for Scarborough. On the way, at a place called Monyhouse, he found a muster of the Dickering men, as Sir Francis had expected. They were all ready to march to Scarborough, but Lumley would take with him only two men from each township, and dismissed the rest to their homes. Even with this limitation his force was raised to six or seven score, too many for Lumley’s comfort, but too few to please his followers, who insisted on summoning Pickering Lythe to muster next day at Spittels to give them aid if they should need it[354].

At the same time they sent to the Priory of Bridlington for help. The prior asserted that he ordered his men not to obey the summons and armed them in order that they might resist the rebels if they came that way, but he was accused of arming them for and not against Lumley[355].

Lumley’s company entered Scarborough without encountering the least opposition. Lumley issued a proclamation that no one should take anything without paying for it, and that no revenge should be attempted against the men who had defended the castle during the last rebellion. By this time it must have been evening, and he went to his lodging for the night, but the commons were not yet satisfied. They were afraid that forces might make their way into the castle, which was unoccupied. In order to secure it, they wished to take up their quarters in it. Lumley would not permit this. He replied that “he would not be of their counsel to enter into the castle, for it was the King’s house, and there had they nor he nothing to do. And their oath was to do no thing against the King.” In the face of this argument the commons did not insist upon entering the castle, but they set a watch round it, in order that no one should surprise it. Lumley went back to his lodging, where he found some more of his servants. About midnight he sent one of them to old Sir Ralph Evers to warn him that the castle was guarded, and to assure him that Lumley would do his best to persuade the commons to go home quietly, and that he hoped in a short time young Sir Ralph would be able to occupy the castle without any opposition.

Next morning, Wednesday 17 January, Lumley and the commons met the bailiffs of the town at the Grey Friars. The town officers took the oath to be true to the commons according to a new form prescribed by Sir Francis Bigod, “the effect whereof was in all things like the former oath with this addition, that no man should give counsel to any man to sit still until such time as they had obtained their former wishes.”[356] Bigod seems to have drawn up several forms of the oath; another draft enjoined the commons to keep their former oath, “and not urging any to join them, to prepare themselves to battle against the undoers of Christ’s Church and the common wealth.”[357]

After administering the oath the commons demanded that three of Sir Ralph Evers’ servants should be surrendered to them. These were Guy Fishe, Lancelot Lacy and one Lockwood. The commons had resolved to put them to death on account of their part in the defence of the castle. Lockwood and probably the other two also were present at the Grey Friars. By “fervent request and long entreaty” George Lumley prevailed upon his men to spare them.

The commons next resolved to enter the castle, but here again the exhortations of Lumley and the bailiffs of the town induced them to give up their purpose for the present.

By this time Lumley and his followers must have been heartily tired of one another, and accordingly he met with no opposition when he said that he must go home and attend to his own business. John Wyvell was chosen captain in his place, and Lumley prepared to depart. He said that Wyvell had enough men to keep the town, and ordered his own company to return with him; he also took Lancelot Lacy, one of the threatened men. Wyvell complained that he would be “left very sklender,” and that men from the neighbouring villages must be summoned to supply the place of Lumley’s men. Lumley promised to send him aid next day and rode off.

Lumley went first to Spittels, the place appointed for the muster of Pickering Lythe. On the way he met small bands of commons going to or returning from the muster. He told them that their fellows had resolved to hold Scarborough, and ordered them to go to its defence that night and to return home next day, as he would then send more men. By the time he reached Spittels those who had attended the muster had all gone home, for he had purposely delayed his arrival. He felt himself now in a position to dismiss his own men, and therefore ordered them all to depart to their houses and not to rise in response to any summons or beacon unless he sent for them in his own name. In the meanwhile he promised to lay their doubts before the Duke of Norfolk and “know his pleasure therein.” They said that they would not rise at the summons of any man but Lumley himself or Sir Thomas Percy. Lumley urged them to make no exceptions—“if ye should rise at his calling or any other man’s then were I in a sore case, for then should I be left alone.” But they still persisted that if Sir Thomas summoned them they must rise; on this understanding they disbanded, and George Lumley went home[358].

Sir Francis Bigod was sufficiently clear-sighted to see that Hull was the point on which his energies must be concentrated. With Hull in his possession, the King could overawe all the East Riding, where disaffection was most active, but if the town were in the hands of the commons, it would be a substantial guarantee for the forthcoming parliament. Accordingly on the first day of the rising he set out to support Hallam’s attack on Hull, which was of vital importance to his success, leaving only a small party to occupy Scarborough, which was a point of much less value, as the experience of the last insurrection had proved. In all his movements his characteristic qualities appear. He had very good ideas, but he was quite incapable of carrying them out. He could see what might be done, and what ought to be done, but he had no power of organisation. Having decided that Scarborough ought to be taken, he despatched the first gentleman whom he encountered to take it, without stopping to consider whether his agent was capable of performing the task.

After Sir Francis left Borough on Tuesday morning, his movements cannot be definitely traced for the next two days, but he had given orders for a muster at Bainton, a place within a few miles of Beverley, on Wednesday 17 January[359]. During these two days there was great activity among the responsible leaders of the Pilgrimage. The news of the attempt on Hull spread quickly. On the very day, Tuesday 16 January, the mayor of Hull sent to the Ellerkers for help, and they passed on the news to Darcy. Bigod’s letter had been found on Hallam, and thus they learnt of the attack on Scarborough[360]. Sir Robert Constable received warning of what had taken place the same day, and wrote about it to Aske from his house at Holme in Spalding Moor. He attributed the rising to the alarm caused by the printed answer to the first petition, and suggested that Aske should come to him and that they might ride to Hull together to declare the King’s true answer[361]. At the same time he sent out several manifestoes to the disaffected parts of the country, assuring all men that the parliament, coronation and convocation were to be held at Whitsuntide in York; “wherefore, good and loving neighbours, let us stay ourselves and resist those who are disposed to spoil.”[362] He explained that he was prevented by illness from coming in person to reassure them, as he was suffering from a severe attack of gout[363].

One of these manifestoes was sent to his son Sir Marmaduke Constable, who despatched it to Thwing. George Lumley sent it on to Scarborough on Thursday 18 January, with orders that the commons there must all depart to their homes, after receiving such a favourable answer[364].

Aske was at Osgodby on Wednesday 17 January, where he received Constable’s letter. He was very much distressed by the news, as he saw that it threatened to destroy the hopes of success which he still entertained. He obeyed Sir Robert’s summons and set out for Holme, after forwarding the letter to Darcy with a request for advice and an exhortation that Darcy would maintain order in his own quarter[365]. Darcy replied immediately that although he heard very dreadful rumours he was able to keep his own parts quiet, in spite of the fact that he was confined to his bed[366]. Darcy also sent congratulations to Hull on the capture of the rebels[367].

On the morning of Thursday 18 January Sir Francis Bigod reached Bainton, and held a muster there[368]. By this time he had of course received news of Hallam’s failure, and his first object was to rescue the prisoners in Hull. From Bainton he wrote to Sir Robert Constable, enclosing the new oath. He stated the reasons for the new rebellion, and begged Constable to send him advice as there was no man whom the commons trusted so much[369]. He despatched three men to Hull to demand the release of Hallam and the other prisoners, and awaited the replies to both messages at Bainton[370].

Sir Robert Constable’s answer was soon brought. Aske was with him at Holme and they both sent remonstrances. Their position was a very difficult one. If they disowned the new movement uncompromisingly, they would forfeit their influence over the commons, with the result that they would be regarded as traitors and their words would have no effect. As they were sincerely opposed to Bigod’s rising, they wished to check it and prevent ill consequences, not merely to demonstrate their own loyalty. Accordingly the gist of their letters was an assurance that the King’s pardon was genuine, that the parliament and the coronation were to be held in York, and that the Duke of Norfolk was coming with only a small train.

Aske’s letter was addressed to the commons, and warned them that “Bigod intended to have destroyed the effects of our petitions”; and that they had done very foolishly in listening to him. However, Aske would represent to the King that they had acted through ignorance and fear, and if they dispersed quietly he did not doubt that the King would pardon them[371]. Sir Robert Constable wrote to Bigod. He repeated the assurances of the King’s good intentions. He could not come himself because he had gout, but Aske was willing to come to them and tell them what he had heard from the King’s own lips. The commons ought to be satisfied with this and remain quiet until Norfolk’s coming. The present rising was contrary to the appointment at Doncaster, and it was a bad time of year for fighting. The best thing that Bigod could do would be to send the commons home again[372].

These letters were received by Sir Francis Bigod at Bainton and when they were read aloud it was agreed that a safe-conduct should be sent to Aske, in order that he might come and speak to them. Just then Woodmancey came to Bigod with a private message from Beverley, and orders were given that the host should enter the town[373]. Old Sir Ralph Ellerker had taken up his quarters there at the first alarm[374], but he was not able to offer any resistance, and Bigod entered Beverley at about four o’clock on Thursday afternoon with between three and four hundred men[375].

There he received a letter from Sir Oswald Wolsthrope commanding the commons to disperse[376]. Bigod replied that the commons would not trust Sir Oswald, because he and the other gentlemen had deceived them before[377]. With this reply he sent a letter to the Dean and Chapter of York[378], to whom he announced that the commons assembled at Beverley demanded their support[379]. This letter shows once more Bigod’s extraordinary mixture of insight and stupidity. The commons are represented as saying that “all will be undone if they do not go forward whilst they yet have pledges for the performance of their petitions and are not in captivity like the men of Lincolnshire and even of Hull. It behoves the clergy to prevent the danger, for the King understands from the gentlemen that the Church began the last assembly.” No warning could have been more true, yet no attempt to avert the danger could have been more futile than Bigod’s. When he wrote these letters his plans were all in confusion, for the one to the Dean and Chapter indicates that he intended to advance on York, while in the other to Sir Oswald Wolsthrope he said that his forces would withdraw into Richmondshire, there to draw up a petition to the King[380]. His bewilderment was natural, for his prospects were becoming more and more gloomy.

Young Sir Ralph Ellerker, who was in Hull, made two of Bigod’s messengers prisoners, on the ground that they were traitors and had no safe-conduct, and sent the third back with an answer which he thought was enough to terrify Sir Francis out of Beverley. Old Sir Ralph sent to his son for help; the latter promised to be with him next day at noon and gave orders for the mustering of Holderness[381]. Bigod had written to Rudston, who had been the captain of Holderness in the last rising, but Rudston replied that he was pledged to the King and went to join Ellerker. Sir Robert Constable also wrote to Rudston, as soon as he heard that Rudston was going to Hull. He commissioned him to ask Ellerker to come to Holme with a copy of “the King’s letter,” in order to pacify the commons. Sir Robert was keeping a watch upon Bigod’s movements and had his men in readiness, but he had just written to Bigod and would not stir until he had received an answer. His advice was that Ellerker should set free Bigod’s messengers, as they had only done their master’s bidding[382].

As nothing but messages of disapproval and news of hostile musters poured in upon Sir Francis at Beverley that night, he and his followers entirely lost heart, while old Sir Ralph Ellerker and the loyalists of the town were much encouraged. Young Sir Ralph was to arrive next morning, Friday 19 January, but long before he was expected his father decided that the forces in the town were strong enough to attack without further delay. No details of the fray have been preserved, but before the late winter dawn had broken, old Sir Ralph and his men had chased the rebels out of Beverley and made sixty-two prisoners[383].

Young Sir Ralph, who had sent to Lincolnshire for reinforcements and to the King for ammunition, mustered the men of Cottingham and Holderness within two miles of the town before 8 o’clock in the morning, and arrived at Beverley too late to do anything but congratulate the victors and carry off the prisoners to Hull. Gratifying as the victory was, young Sir Ralph, in his report to the King, criticised some of the proceedings. He was disappointed that no one had been killed; if he had been there no quarter should have been given. It was also a great blemish that Sir Francis Bigod had been able to make his escape; no one knew whither he had fled[384]. Nevertheless, in spite of these drawbacks, the danger in the East Riding was at an end, and it remained only to spread the news up and down the country[385].

After Sir Francis Bigod’s flight the papers which he left in his room at Beverley were seized by Matthew Boynton[386], son-in-law of Sir John Bulmer[387]. Among them was the “book” containing his opinion on the supremacy and on other points of church government, which Sir Francis had read to Hallam[388], and some letters directed to the Lord Mayor of York, which were forwarded by the town officers of Beverley with the news that Bigod had “left early in the morning,” and a warning that the city and neighbourhood of York must be kept in order[389].