Chapter XVII: Hallam and Bigod (2)

Boynton wrote to his father-in-law to warn him that Bigod was thought to have fled to Cleveland with the intention of raising the commons there. It would be a most acceptable piece of service to the King if Sir John could capture him[390]. Boynton did not know the painful situation in which Sir John was placed. It is tolerably certain that Sir Francis Bigod had revealed his intentions to Bulmer, who was his uncle by marriage. Margaret, Sir John’s second wife, William Staynhus his chaplain, and Ralph his eldest son by his first marriage, also knew of the scheme. His wife and the chaplain urged him to join his nephew, saying that the commons wanted but a head, that if one rose all would, and that if the other gentlemen rose he must do the like[391]. Sir John himself had no inclination for rising. He was the lessee of the suppressed nunnery of Rosedale[392], and had been taken by the commons with violence in the first insurrection[393], in which he had played no particular part. He was a nervous, excitable man, very unfit for any dangerous enterprise. Yet in consequence of his temperament Sir Francis’ doubts about the validity of the pardon made a great impression upon him. He would not join his nephew’s hopeless attempt, but he sent his son Ralph up to London in order to discover the King’s real purpose. When he received Boynton’s message he was anxiously expecting news from Ralph[394]. In the circumstances it is not surprising that he did not take Sir Francis.

The King was well informed as to the progress of events. On Thursday 18 January Aske sent news of Hallam’s attempt, Bigod’s musters, and the agitation in the north and west. He reported that the commons of the north and west “repaired to no worshipful men,” but made their fellows captains. All the gentlemen were doing their best to quiet the people, and he begged the King to send Norfolk immediately[395]. On the same day the mayor of Hull sent the King a full report of Hallam’s attempt and the arrival of Bigod’s messengers, enclosing the first examinations of six of Hallam’s men and John Eland’s own account of Hallam’s capture[396]. Since its capitulation to the Pilgrims, the town of Hull had been in disgrace with the King, and trade had been interrupted[397]. Consequently the burgesses were delighted to have this opportunity of re-establishing their credit with the government. Other letters spread the tidings of the rebels’ defeat[398].

The news from Scarborough was equally favourable to the King. George Lumley, anxious to prove his ignorance of Bigod’s plot, resolved to surrender to the Duke of Norfolk. He has been compared to a hero of Sir Walter Scott’s, but unfortunately real life does not show the happy turns of a romance; there was no quick-witted outlaw or faithful gipsy to spirit him away to Scotland and safety in spite of himself, and in the innocence of his heart he went straight to his death[399].

The leaders of the commons at Scarborough were Ralph Fenton and John Wyvell. They must have heard of Bigod’s flight after they were abandoned by Lumley, and finding themselves completely deserted by their leaders and without support, they offered no resistance when young Sir Ralph Evers occupied the town. The date of this is not certain, but he probably set out as soon as Lumley surrendered himself. Sir Ralph imprisoned Wyvell and Fenton, but used no further severity. He “gave the people comfortable words,” and induced them to promise obedience and “to wear a cross of St George.” The wearing of these crosses was a sign that they thankfully accepted the pardon and meant to be as loyal as before the insurrection[400]. Gregory Conyers, who seems to have been at court about Twelfth Night, on his return to the north spread the story that “the King himself of Sunday after Twelfthtide ... openly in the presence of all noblemen and worshipful men of the country and many other ... laid his hand of his breast and swore by the faith that he did bear to God and St George he had not only forgiven and pardoned all his subjects of the north by his writing under seal, but also freely in his heart.”[401] The neighbourhood of Scarborough appeared to be quiet, but for fear of disturbances in other parts Evers garrisoned and prepared the castle[402].

Sir Ralph Evers had prudently taken only two prisoners, but at Hull there were over seventy, and the first question which confronted the gentlemen there was how to deal with them. All those who had come to the defence of Hull met on Saturday 20 January to consider the matter. There were now in prison at Hull Hallam, Kitchen and six of their company, Bigod’s two messengers, and the sixty-two prisoners who had been taken at Beverley; it must have been difficult to find room in the town to keep so many safely. It was impossible to release Hallam and his fellows, but while some of the gentlemen advised that all the prisoners should be kept in ward, others wished to keep only the leaders of the Beverley captives, while others again thought that all might be released on bail. Monketon, who was sent by Robert Aske, strongly urged the last-named course upon them, and it was finally adopted, partly because it was the most convenient, partly because there were no prisoners of importance and all declared that they had come against their wills, and partly because the responsibility for it could be laid upon Aske[403].

The result of the attempt on Hull was to bring about the very thing that the commons had feared, namely, the fortification of the town by the King. When the prisoners had been disposed of, young Sir Ralph Ellerker made a full report to Henry, with a request that gunners and gunpowder might be sent to him, and that he might be allowed a body of two hundred horsemen until the country was in better order[404]. The request was justified by the fact that Bigod’s agitation had spread much further than the East Riding. Bigod believed that Durham, Richmondshire and the west were on the point of rising; when the immediate danger had been averted at Hull and Scarborough it still remained to be seen whether there might not be a more formidable host coming from the north.

On Wednesday 17 January two of Bigod’s messengers to the north were taken. Sir William Mallory discovered one of them near Northallerton, and sent to the Duke of Norfolk a letter from Bigod, which was found in the man’s possession, urging the commons of Swaledale to rise[405]. The other messenger took a letter and a copy of the new oath to Durham, and delivered them to the bailiff and Cuthbert Richardson. The officers of the town returned answer that the men of Durham had sworn to rise for no one but the Earl of Westmorland or the King, and that they would “stick to the King’s pardon.” As the Bishop of Durham was still at Norham, they sent the letter and the messenger to the Earl of Westmorland at Brancepeth[406]. The Earl was rather an incapable character, but at least he had the wisdom to know his own weakness. Having heard a rumour that he was to be made warden of one of the Marches, he had hurried south to his uncle Lord Sandys, in order, if possible, to prevent the dreaded appointment[407]. He left an efficient deputy in the person of his wife Katharine, daughter of the late Duke of Buckingham, who “rather playeth the part of a knight than of a lady.”[408] When the bailiff of Durham brought Bigod’s letter and messenger to the countess on Thursday 18 January, she gave orders for the apprehension of any others who might come, thanked the bailiff, and sent a copy of the letter to her husband, directing him to show it to the Lord Privy Seal. Her conclusion was, “I and all honest men long for your coming home.” The letter was laid before the Privy Council[409], but in spite of the Countess’ vigour, when the townsfolk of Durham heard what their bailiff had done, they seized him and threatened to strike off his head if the messenger was not released, and the bailiff was obliged to contrive that the prisoner should be set free.[410]

It was not Bigod’s letters, however, which were the real danger in the north, but a secret agitation going on among the commons. Its originators are unknown. Proclamations and manifestos appeared and passed from hand to hand, or were fastened on church doors, no one knowing whence they came. Several of these manifestos were seized and sent to the King. They were all of a popular character, and show no trace of Bigod’s influence. One of them was headed, “These be articles that men may perceive that this entreaty is but feigned policy to subdue the commons withal,” and proceeded to show that the terms made at Doncaster had not been kept. The abbeys had been restored only by the commons, and many of the farmers had sold the abbey lands and fled out of the country. A parliament had been promised in York “on the twentieth day,” but it had never been held. Cromwell was as high in favour as ever. No man was pardoned unless he would acknowledge the King to be Supreme Head of the Church. Aske had received great rewards in London for betraying the commons. Hull was being fortified. Therefore if the commons would save themselves, they must rise at once and make their own leaders, trusting the gentlemen no more[411]. This may have been the bill sent up to Norfolk by Lord Scrope from Bolton on 27 January[412].

On Friday 19 January a bill appeared in Richmond ordering the commons of every township to rise on pain of death, to seize the gentlemen and to make them swear upon the mass-book to maintain the profit of Holy Church, to take nothing of their tenants but the rent, to put down Cromwell and all heretics, and to prevent all lords and gentlemen from going up to London. If any gentlemen refused to take the oath he was to be put to death and his heir seized and sworn in his stead. This bill was taken by Sir Thomas Wharton on Sunday 21 January[413].

The fact that this agitation was going on further north was known at Hull, and it was feared that Sir Francis Bigod had fled only to raise Cleveland[414]. On Saturday 20 January Darcy informed Shrewsbury that the commons of the north were coming forward, and that they entered the houses of Lord Latimer, the Earl of Westmorland, and other gentlemen who had gone up to the King, and made inventories of their goods with the intention of seizing them if their owners did not return at once[415]. Lord Latimer heard on the same day that the commons of Richmondshire had seized his house at Snape. He was on his way to London, but had been ordered to turn back and wait on Norfolk in York[416]. The property of the detested Beckwith at Stillingfleet was plundered again on Friday 19 January[417].

In addition to the disturbances in Richmond and Durham, no one knew what might be happening in Northumberland. When the first news of Bigod’s rising spread to Lincolnshire, it was said that Sir Thomas Percy had seized Scarborough[418]. The suspicion against him increased when George Lumley came to York on Saturday 20 January, and laid before Sir Oswald Wolsthrope his connection with the rising[419]. It is true that he was able to state definitely that Sir Thomas Percy had not been at Scarborough, but he represented that the commons of the neighbourhood were so deeply attached to Sir Thomas that he was the “lock, key and ward of this matter.” When examined, Lumley denied that, to his knowledge, Sir Thomas had had any complicity in the rising; he used these words to indicate Sir Thomas’ popularity[420].

The parson of Leckonfield, Sir Thomas’ chaplain, was at Beverley during Hallam’s attempt. Bigod asked him whether his master was prepared to take part in another insurrection, and he replied that Sir Thomas would rise for no man[421]. As soon as Hallam’s failure was known, the chaplain hurried off to Northumberland with the news[422]. He travelled so fast that he arrived before Bigod’s own letter to Sir Thomas, which was sent to the dowager countess of Northumberland and forwarded by her with a message that Sir Thomas “should take a substantial way in that matter upon her blessing.” Sir Thomas declared that he understood this to mean that he should have nothing to do with Bigod, and that he was prevented from sending the letter and the messenger who brought it up to the King only by his respect for his mother[423]. Whatever the countess may really have meant, for her words scarcely seem to bear her son’s interpretation, he was not likely to make any move after he had heard of Hallam’s ill-success, but he was already compromised in more ways than one. On Wednesday 17 January he had proclaimed a county meeting at Morpeth. Sir John Widdrington and Lord Ogle prohibited it. The Percys, contrary to their wont, took this prohibition very well. The coincidence of the proposed meeting with Bigod’s rising is suspicious, but as Sir Thomas acquiesced in its abandonment, it was probably no more than an unfortunate chance. On Monday 22 January the common people swore that they would burn all Tynedale and Reedsdale, but as the reivers were Percy’s friends, this was a movement against, rather than for, him. Lord Ogle succeeded in quieting the people[424].

The threat of a Northumberland rising was hanging over the heads of the gentlemen at Hull when on Tuesday 23 January they examined Hallam and his accomplices. In consequence of this Aske warned them not to proceed to execution as yet, for fear of provoking the north[425], and his advice was so far followed that some of the prisoners were sent to York to await Norfolk’s arrival[426].

The special commissioners who examined them on 23 January were William Rogers the mayor, Sir Ralph Ellerker the younger, Sir John Constable of Holderness, Sir William Constable, Sir Christopher Hillyard, and Richard Smytheley. The chief informer, John Fowbery, was not examined, or at least his evidence has not been preserved. The justices heard Horskey and Langdale, who had turned King’s evidence and had accused the sub-prior and several of the canons of Watton[427]. Hallam was carefully examined on the 24th and 26th, but said nothing to implicate the monks of Watton[428]; in fact he did not accuse anyone but those who were already prisoners[429]. On 25 January William Nicholson of Holderness, who had tried to rescue Hallam, Roger Kitchen and John Francis of Beverley were examined. William Crockey the deputy-customer to whom Horskey and Langdale revealed the plot gave his evidence on Friday 26 January. The rest of the prisoners were servants and labourers who were examined on Friday and Saturday[430].

The case against all these men was perfectly clear. They had risen in open rebellion since the pardon. The extenuating circumstance that the King had deliberately provoked the rising could not be pleaded by them, and the only question was how far the King would be inclined to show mercy. On this point the gentlemen were still in some doubt, and accordingly only Hallam and two others, probably Nicholson and Kitchen, were condemned to death[431]. The rest were remanded to await the coming of the Duke of Norfolk[432]. The three were executed before 4 February 1536–7[433], but probably not until Norfolk had been consulted about their fate.

On the information of Horskey and Langdale three of the canons of Watton were arrested before Tuesday 30 January[434]. These were Dan Harry Gyll the sub-prior, Thomas Lather the cellarer and granator, and Richard Wilkinson the cellarer of the kitchen. When examined they all three confessed that they had taken part in the election of a new prior, but all declared that it had been done through fear of the commons. They also confessed that it was the general opinion of the monastery that the King could not be Supreme Head of the Church, that they had heard Sir Francis Bigod express doubts as to the validity of the pardon, and that they had sent three men with money to take part in Hallam’s enterprise. The two cellarers professed to have opposed the sending of the men; they said that they were unpopular in the monastery because they were the servants of the prior appointed by Cromwell. Gyll did not attempt to defend himself. The canons were reserved for Norfolk’s judgment[435].

Another instance of a monastery becoming implicated, justly or unjustly, in the rebellion occurred at this time. Thomas Hungate, a servant of Sir Arthur Darcy, informed Sir Oswald Wolsthrope that George Shuttleworth, a servant of Sawley Abbey, had been in Durham when the herald was attacked (on or before 9 January)[436] and had given out that he was going to Sir Thomas Percy for counsel[437]. Shuttleworth was arrested about Wednesday 24 January. As suspicion had been so strongly excited against Sir Thomas, this information was naturally believed to be very important. When it became known that Shuttleworth had been in company with William Leache, one of the Lincolnshire refugees, the case against Sir Thomas and the Abbot of Sawley seemed to be almost proved[438]. Yet when the matter is as far as possible unravelled, with the help of Shuttleworth’s deposition, their guilt still remains dubious.

The Abbot of Sawley’s letter to Aske has already been mentioned. Sir Thomas Percy was regarded as the founder of Sawley, that is, as the representative of William, Lord Percy, who founded and endowed the monastery[439]. The living founder of a monastery was the person to whom the monks usually appealed in any secular difficulty. After writing to Aske, the Abbot of Sawley decided to apply to his founder also, and wrote a supplication to Sir Thomas Percy[440]. He took counsel in this matter with no one but three monks of the house, his chaplain Estgate, Bradforde and Parishe.

Estgate took this letter to Sir Stephen Hamerton whom he found hunting at Settle Spring. Estgate offered him for nothing a wood which he had wished to buy from the Abbey two years ago, but Sir Stephen refused such a dangerous gift. The chaplain told him of the letter to Sir Thomas Percy, and repeated the most important part of its contents,—that the commons had restored the monks to their abbey, and that the monks begged for Sir Thomas’ favour. Hamerton said that he did not see what Sir Thomas could do for them “but they might do as they list,” and Estgate left him without any further conversation upon the subject[441].

When Shuttleworth returned with Robert Aske’s letter, the Abbot straightway despatched him to Sir Thomas Percy with the supplication. At this point a serious difficulty in chronology arises. Shuttleworth said that he set out at once and reached Richmond on Innocents’ Day, 28 December 1536[442]. Sir Thomas Percy supported this statement by saying that he received the Abbot’s letter a month or six weeks before Bigod’s rising[443]. Against this is to be set the fact that Shuttleworth was accused of having been in Durham on his way _to_ Sir Thomas, on or before 9 January 1536–7[444], and that he himself said that he had been with Robert Aske at Aughton at a time when Aske must have been in London[445]. William Maunsell, who took part in arresting Shuttleworth on 24 January, implied that the latter had just returned from his errand[446]. The only deduction from all this conflicting evidence is that it is impossible to determine exactly when Shuttleworth’s errand was performed; more is known about the way in which he performed it.

The Abbot delivered to him 10_s._ for his expenses, “a bent royal of gold for a token to Sir Thomas Percy,” and the supplication, the contents of which Shuttleworth did not know. After receiving these articles, Shuttleworth went to Richard Broderton’s inn near the Abbey gates, to have a drink before setting out on his new journey. A friend asked him to come next day to “an ale,” and he was obliged to refuse the invitation because he had an errand to Sir Thomas Percy. Another man heard this, and offered to accompany Shuttleworth, saying that he also had an errand to Sir Thomas. They set out together, and Shuttleworth soon discovered that his companion was William Leache, a Lincolnshire rebel who had been excepted from the King’s pardon.

Leache told Shuttleworth that he had received a letter signed by Lord Darcy, Robert Aske and Sir Thomas Percy summoning Lincolnshire to rise again. He had sent this letter into Lincolnshire with one of his own to the same effect, but before any answer came “they in Yorkshire took another way with them.” The letter had fallen into the King’s hands and consequently Leache had been excluded from the pardon. Now he was going to Sir Thomas Percy to ask for his intercession with the Duke of Norfolk. He showed Shuttleworth one of the letters, but it is not clear whether this was his own letter, or the one alleged to have been signed by Darcy, Aske and Percy[447]. This letter to Lincolnshire must have been written before the second appointment at Doncaster, when they “took another way,” if it was ever written at all, but the whole story is improbable, for Darcy, Aske and Percy were never together, except for a few days before the first appointment at Doncaster, and Leache had been excepted out of the Lincolnshire pardons from the beginning, before the King was even aware that Yorkshire had risen[448].

Leache and Shuttleworth spent the first night of their journey at Kettlewell, and the next at Ralph Gower’s house in Richmond, where they fell in with a party of five priests and two or three laymen. On hearing that Shuttleworth came from Sawley the laymen said, “Fye on them that dwell nigh about that house, that ever they would suffer the monks to be put out of it. And that was the first house that was put down in this country. But rather than our house of Saint Agatha should go down, we shall all die; and if any insurrection should happen here again, where there was but one in the same before, now there would be three.”

Next night the travellers were in Durham, but Shuttleworth said nothing about their adventures there. On the following day they reached Prudhoe, but Sir Thomas Percy was out hunting, and Shuttleworth did not see him until 9 o’clock on the morning after he arrived. Shuttleworth presented the letter and the token, and Sir Thomas told him he should receive his answer in the afternoon. When Shuttleworth came again, Sir Thomas gave him a verbal message that the Abbot should “make no resistance if any commission came down from the King, but speak fair to such as should come withal, for the Abbot had as many friends as any man, and if any house should stand, his was like to do so.” Sir Thomas also told him to desire Sir Stephen Hamerton’s best counsel for the Abbot and the house, and as a token that the message came from Sir Thomas he was to say “that I [Sir Thomas] spake to him at our last being together that he should be good unto my lady my mother.”[449]

Leache had not yet accomplished his ambiguous errand. After Shuttleworth left Sir Thomas, Leache had an interview with the latter, but what passed between them Shuttleworth did not know[450]. The two men went back to Sawley together, but when the Abbot was told who Leache was, he ordered him to “avoid that quarter,” lest he should bring trouble upon the house[451].

The supplication which aroused so much curiosity in Sir Thomas Percy’s enemies afterwards fell into Norfolk’s hands[452]. It appears to be a very harmless document. The monks of Sawley begged Sir Thomas to consider their present need, and to let them know his pleasure for the succour of their house. They feared their “most sinister back friend Sir Arthur Darcy,” and wished to know whether Sir Thomas would advise them to follow the counsel of the neighbouring commons and remain in their house. Sir Stephen Hamerton and Nicholas Tempest had been true friends, and the monks begged Sir Thomas to give them some reward, as they themselves could requite them only by their prayers. The one passage to which any seditious meaning could be attached ran as follows:—“The whole noise and bruit in these parts is, the captain should have left and discharged himself of the captainship, but also is judged and supposed an order to be taken for religious houses suppressed, the farmers or other to enter and occupy, and the abbot or prior and brethren to have and taken at their delivery their necessaries, and so to be avoided of possession unto the Parliament, whereof not only the place but also the time is as yet not perceived to be; wherefore men’s hearts hath no little suspect, vexation, and great disdain, in doubting the great enormities and danger that may ensue and come to them.”[453] Even this, which is the most incriminating part of the letter, is too vague to bear any genuinely treasonable interpretation. The unfortunate monks, in fact, only begged to be told what they ought to do, as they were quite ready to submit to any orders which they might receive from a competent authority; but no one was in a position to relieve their perplexity. The Abbot was accused of being the author of the bills which were posted on the church doors in the neighbourhood, but no evidence of this was produced[454].

The most suspicious circumstance in the communications between Sir Thomas Percy and the Abbot was the presence of William Leache. He was a man of a savage, determined character. On this occasion he made his escape to Scotland, but in 1541 he and another fugitive murdered Somerset Herald near Dunbar, as he was returning from a mission to James V. For this barbarous deed they were both surrendered to the English government and executed[455]. It can have been with no very peaceful object that such a man appeared at Sawley, visited Sir Thomas Percy, and returned to Sawley again; but the nature of his errand was never discovered.

The gentlemen had accomplished a good deal in the week which followed Bigod’s rising. They had arrested and examined most of his accomplices, they were accumulating evidence against Sir Thomas Percy, and George Lumley was a prisoner in York. The only remaining task was the capture of Bigod himself. This did not appear to be a very difficult affair, as everyone had turned against him. The gentlemen were trying to arrest him as a rebel against the King, and the commons were ready to put him to death as a traitor to the commons.

The particulars of Sir Francis’ flight from Beverley on Friday 19 January are not known, but the commons declared that he had deserted them. His only idea was to go home again, and as he neared Settrington he sent forward his horsekeeper Harry Soulay to discover how he would be received. At Yeddingham Bridge Soulay heard the threats of the disappointed rebels, and came back to warn his master to go no further. Bigod took refuge at William Middlewood’s house in Ebberston, and sent Soulay on again, with orders to go right to Settrington for news and to return to Ebberston the same night. Before Soulay’s return Middlewood’s brother-in-law came in and reported some of the angry sayings against Sir Francis which he had heard by the way. Sir Francis was so much alarmed that he set out again and rode all night for his castle at Mulgrave. On the morning of Saturday 20 January he reached Sandsend, a little village on the coast a couple of miles east of Mulgrave. Soulay, on returning to Ebberston to find his master, was seized by the commons and would have been beheaded if he had not been rescued by Sir George Conyers.

The feeling against Sir Francis was so strong that his inveterate enemy Gregory Conyers for the moment took up the popular cause. His one object was to be on the opposite side to Sir Francis, and consequently when the latter changed sides, and again when both sides turned against him, Gregory’s position was a complicated one. On Saturday 20 January he proclaimed to the fishermen all along the coast that Sir Francis Bigod was a traitor to the King and to the commons, and ordered them to keep watch that he did not escape by sea[456]. This formula linking the King and the commons was the usual one, which occurs in the Lincolnshire oath and elsewhere. It does not imply that Gregory was commissioned to act for the King. William Neville, brother of Lord Latimer, and Serjeant Roger Middlewood went to Mulgrave to seize Bigod’s goods[457]. Gregory Conyers arrived there shortly afterwards; hearing of the previous seizure, he said to Bigod’s wife, “Madame, and here are twain come for the commons,” and seized what remained in the commons’ name, on the grounds that Sir Francis had betrayed them[458].

While this was going on Bigod was in hiding somewhere near his despoiled castle. On Sunday 21 January Gregory Conyers went to Hinderwell in search of him, warning all the country to give the fugitive no aid, but at this point Gregory seems to have abandoned his alliance with the commons, as he joined the King’s representatives, Neville and Middlewood[459]. They were so close upon Bigod’s track that they surprised him in his hiding-place, and Gregory seized him by his sleeveless coat, but Bigod slipped off the loose garment and fled into the woods on foot. His assailants had to be satisfied with the capture of his servants and horses[460]. Dismounted as he was, Bigod eluded pursuit for nearly three weeks[461].

On Thursday 25 January young Sir Ralph Evers reported to the King the retaking of Scarborough and Bigod’s flight[462]. He petitioned Cromwell to further his suit for Sir Francis’ lands[463]. Next day he wrote again enclosing the names of those who had been rulers of the commons in the last insurrection but had served the King well on this occasion. He hoped that the King would acknowledge their services, and particularly praised Sir John Bulmer’s son-in-law Matthew Boynton[464].

The King must have been pleased to find that his policy had produced such excellent results. The breach between the gentlemen and the commons was now complete. The former had been busy quieting the latter, while Henry felt himself absolved by the rising from any obligation to keep his promises.

On receiving young Sir Ralph Ellerker’s report dated 20 January, the King sent letters to both the writer and his father. He thanked them for their services, sent money and ammunition, and gave permission for 100 horsemen to be retained in Hull, but he was displeased that the prisoners had been admitted to bail. He ordered that they should be re-arrested and tried, and as many as possible executed; for this purpose he sent a commission to the Ellerkers. These letters are undated, but probably reached Hull before 24 January, the day of Hallam’s trial[465]. John Eland was thanked and rewarded for his service in taking Hallam[466].

Sir Arthur Darcy wrote to his father from court on 23 January that the King had received Lord Darcy’s letters very graciously[467], and next day Henry wrote himself to Darcy to thank him for his services and to order him to victual Pontefract Castle secretly, so that he and his sons might hold it if the people rose again[468]. On Thursday 25 January Henry thanked Shrewsbury for his “discreet proceedings” in the “new tragedy moved by that false traitor Bigod.”[469] The old Earl had written to his master that he was very ill and feared he should “not long be here.”[470] The King in reply sent him his own physician Dr Butts, and expressed the hope that he would see and thank Shrewsbury in person on “his repair into those parts, which, God willing, shall be shortly.” The King repeated the contents of his letter to Darcy, and declared that so long as Darcy did his duty, he would regard him with as much favour as if the rebellion had never occurred[471]. Darcy’s pardon was made out on 18 January[472].

The King wrote to Robert Aske on 24 January thanking him for his letter and goodwill. Henry concluded by saying that he “would be glad to hear of some special deed in answer to our expectations.”[473] The meaning of this was clear. Aske was already regarded with suspicion in Yorkshire on account of his intercourse with the King. If he took a leading part in the capture and execution of the new rebels, his influence over the commons would be completely destroyed. Then Henry, if he pleased, might safely execute the discredited captain, or extend to him a contemptuous pardon if he seemed likely to become a useful tool. Aske did not take the hint. Throughout the rebellion he had been acting not for himself but for his cause. He was entirely opposed to Bigod’s attempt, because he saw that it was foolish, useless, and dangerous. As he held this opinion he did his best to suppress the movement, but he was full of pity for the unfortunate men who had taken part in it. His voice was always on the side of mercy. He advised that Bigod’s messengers should be released from Hull, that the prisoners should be bailed, and that Hallam’s execution should be delayed in the hope of a pardon. Several of those who had been with Bigod threw themselves upon Aske’s mercy, and he promised to try to procure their pardon[474].

Perhaps Aske still believed in the King’s humane intentions, but it is scarcely possible that he should have kept this illusion after Henry’s letter, particularly in face of the opposite conduct of the other gentlemen. They for the most part realised that they had made their choice between the King and the cause, and that it remained for them to make themselves secure with the King by denouncing others. Beneath the steady stream of gracious messages which still flowed down from the court, there is an eddy in the opposite direction of messages vaguely or definitely hostile to the former leaders of the Pilgrimage, sent up by their former comrades.

Eland and Knolles had taken an active part in the surrender of Hull to the insurgents, but they had now redeemed their characters by capturing Hallam. Sir Ralph Ellerker had been one of the messengers to the King, and Nicholas Rudston had been the chief captain of Holderness, but they were now anxious to retrieve themselves by implicating Sir Robert Constable in the new rising. They discovered a means by which this might be done in the letter which Aske and Constable had written to Rudston before Bigod’s flight from Beverley; it contained the advice that Bigod’s messengers should be released, as they had only done their master’s errand[475]. The letter was delivered to Rudston on the morning of Friday 19 January, just before the advance on Beverley; after the gentlemen had entered the town Rudston showed the letter to young Sir Ralph Ellerker whom he met on Westwood Green. Rudston read it aloud in the presence of two of Sir Robert’s servants, who perceived that it was considered treasonable[476].

On Saturday 20 January at Hull Sir Ralph Ellerker caused his chaplain to make a copy of the letter to be sent up to the King, while Rudston went to dine with Sir Robert Constable on Sunday 21 January. Constable’s servants must have warned him that the letter was being used against him, for he asked Rudston to show it to him, and inquired what fault he found with it. Rudston seems to have implied that it was a very faulty performance in every respect, but he said, “The greatest fault that Sir Ralph Ellerker and I do find is against the messengers that ye write for.” Sir Robert unwisely attempted a prevarication, saying that there was no harm in that, for he meant Langdale and Horskey, who went to Hull to buy their Lenten store. Rudston answered that Sir Ralph Ellerker thought that he had meant Bigod’s messengers. Sir Robert retorted with an oath, “And if so, what harm?” and gave back the letter. Later in the day he asked Rudston to show the letter to Dr Waldby. Rudston handed it over, and Sir Robert stood talking about it beside the Doctor. Presently he took it out of Waldby’s hands “and conveyed it into his bosom or sleeve.” Rudston saw this, but pretended to notice nothing. Happening to find Waldby by himself, Rudston asked him whom Sir Robert had really meant, and Waldby admitted that the allusion was to Bigod’s messengers. The conclusion is rather humorous:

“Within a while I [Rudston] put my hand into my bosom and said, as if
speaking to myself, ‘What have I done with the letter?’ adding,
‘Marry, Mr Constable hath it himself.’ The Doctor said, ‘Even so hath
he.’ And forasmuch as I did somewhat mistrust the said Sir Robert, and
perceived indeed that he had conveyed the letter, I durst not ask the
letter of the said Sir Robert, and specially because I was sure of a
copy.”[477]

Rudston might well be afraid of Sir Robert; it is a matter for wonder that he had sufficient impudence to go and dine at his house, when he was doing his best to ruin him. It was unfortunate for his case that Sir Robert tried to prevaricate about the persons mentioned in his letter, as he was afterwards accused of having asked Rudston to deliver Hallam[478]. Constable could never have imagined that he could procure Hallam’s release by letter; such an attempt would have been both treasonable and useless, but the ambiguity of his phrase enabled his accusers to read that meaning into the words.

For some reason, both Aske and Constable were firmly convinced that Sir Ralph Ellerker had brought north a letter from the King. Constable asked to be allowed to read it in his letter about the messengers[479]. On Sunday 21 January Aske, who had returned from Holme to Aughton, wrote to ask Ellerker to send him a copy of the mythical letter from the King. Aske’s request has not been preserved. Sir Ralph Ellerker replied that he had no such letter; his conclusion is curious: “I will be glad to confer with you at Ellerker if you will send me word, for I am not so good a clerk as to read your letter perfectly.”[480] Aske’s letter was probably the one in which he recommended Ellerker not to execute Hallam while the north was still so much disturbed, and this passage in Ellerker’s reply must be an allusion to the same dangerous subject. Ellerker was collecting evidence against Constable; he may have wished to entrap Aske also, but it is possible to give him the benefit of the doubt. The Ellerkers had an old feud with Sir Robert Constable, which revived as soon as the enforced truce of the Pilgrimage ended, but the Ellerkers and the Askes were friends and related by marriage. Young Sir Ralph never produced Aske’s letter as evidence against him, and his comment on the letter which he could not read perfectly may have been meant as a warning that there was something in the letter which ought not to have been written. In response to this invitation Aske set out for Ellerker. On the way he met William Levening and one Fulthorp, who appealed to him to help them, as they had been forced to take part in Bigod’s rising against their will. Levening said that he had already been to Sir Robert Constable and to Lord Darcy, in order to enlist their sympathy. Both he and Fulthorp promised, if Aske would take their names, to be ready to appear before Norfolk whenever he summoned them. Aske undertook to do his best for them, and afterwards requested William Babthorpe to lay their case before the Duke[481].

The gentlemen who had been loyal throughout the insurrection were now busily accumulating evidence against the late leaders. Sir Henry Saville on 29 January sent to Cromwell a letter from the Vicar of Brayton which showed that the Vicar had acted by Aske’s orders. Sir Henry mentioned a summons which Darcy had sent out to the gentlemen of the Honour of Pontefract, calling them to assemble at Pontefract Castle. Before they came he had surrendered the castle, and on their arrival they all took the Pilgrims’ oath. Sir Henry Saville reported that there had been riots between the servants of the Abbot of Kirkstall and those of Sir Christopher Danby. His advice was that the abbot should be deposed, and he suggested that the real movers in the last insurrection had never appeared, but “had set light persons on to prove the country.”[482]

The easiest way for anyone to prove his loyalty was by accusing someone else, and Sir George Darcy reported that there were “great exclamations against Aske.” The King’s orders to Darcy to hold Pontefract Castle with his two sons, though put in the form of a compliment, were really a source of strife, for Lord Darcy found it impossible to work with Sir George Darcy, who did his best to obtain evidence against his father. Through Shrewsbury’s mediation, Sir George had a fairly amicable meeting with his father on Friday 26 January[483], but as soon as the King’s orders concerning Pontefract arrived, about Monday 29 January, trouble followed. On receipt of the King’s letter, Sir George wrote to his father to ask him what he meant to do. Darcy replied that he did not wish to make preparations until Sir George came in person to see the letter which he had received, and that as Norfolk was expected on Saturday 3 February, and as the country was quiet, he thought that there would be no harm in waiting until Norfolk arrived before doing anything[484]. In fact this cunningly framed compliment placed Darcy in such a position that whatever he did could be used as evidence against him. If he set to work energetically to provision Pontefract Castle, he would be accused of preparing for a new insurrection, but when he chose the other course of doing nothing without express orders, he was represented as being slack and reluctant in the King’s service.

As soon as Lord Darcy had declared his opinion, Sir George took the opposite side. He wrote back on Tuesday 30 January that the country was far from quiet and that he dared not wait the three days which must elapse before Norfolk arrived without beginning to prepare the castle; neither did he dare to leave the castle even for the few hours which were required for a visit to Templehurst, and he therefore refused to come to his father to see the King’s letter. This was the point at which matters stood when Norfolk arrived at Doncaster.

Before the Duke reached the north, Cromwell sent an agent of his own, Sir Ralph Sadler, to see how the land lay. Sir Ralph’s ostensible mission was to go to Scotland and to demand from the government the surrender of the Lincolnshire fugitives[485], but with this he combined the duty of writing careful reports on the state of the disaffected districts. On Tuesday 23 January he reached York. He heard many rumours on the road of fresh risings further north, and found that there were bills on all the church doors between Doncaster and York, urging the commons to stick together as the gentlemen had deceived them. All the country through which he had passed was quiet, but if there were a new insurrection, the people would take the part of the army which arrived first, to save their goods.

Sadler talked with many of the “honest householders,” who declared that Aske had caused the first rising by spreading bills that the parish churches should be pulled down, and that taxes were to be levied on marriages, burials, and christenings. They were also positive that the gentlemen had been willing enough to take part in the rising. “Why,” quoth Sadler, “the gentlemen were taken by the commons and compelled to be their captains.” “Yea, yea,” was the reply, “an the gentlemen had been as they should be they might have stayed them well enough at the first; but when the gentlemen took their parts, then such poor men as we be could do no less than do as they did or else have been spoiled of all that we have.” Sadler was particularly intimate with the hosts of the various inns at which he stayed. The host of the village inn has always been an oracle of almost equal authority with the village priest. At Tadcaster Sadler’s host, a merry fellow, said to him, “Why, how say ye to my lord Darcy? Did he not turn to the commons as soon as they came to Pontefract and took their part? And yet being within the castle he might have resisted them if they had been ten times as many as they were.”[486] When the King was receiving such reports, it was not very likely that he would keep his promise to take the first insurrection “but for a dream.”[487]

Sadler wrote again on 28 January from Newcastle. A day or two before he set out on his journey, there had been great danger of a new rising in Cleveland, owing to bills which were scattered abroad to warn the people that the Duke of Norfolk was coming with a great army “to hang and draw from Doncaster to Berwick,” so that the north would be “brought in worse case than the Lincolnshire men.” The rising had been prevented by Robert Bowes, who was travelling all over the district to quiet the people. Sadler remarked that as the gentlemen had been able to repress the present attempt, they could have dealt with the first rebellion just as easily if they had wished. In spite of the recent disturbance, all the country through which he had passed was quiet except Darlington, where he had spent a night and found the people very “tickle.” He alighted at his inn at about 6 o’clock, and saw not more than three or four people in the street, but he had scarcely mounted the stairs to his room, when thirty or forty armed men had gathered round the inn door, “and stood together in a plompe whispering and rounding together.” Sadler, as usual, had recourse to the host, “who seemed to be an honest man.” He said that the townsfolk always assembled when any traveller came from the south, because they wanted to hear the news. Sadler admonished him that the town authorities ought not to permit such unlawful assemblies. The host replied that the heads of the town dared not for their lives interfere, but that no harm would come of it. “Quoth he, ‘Ye shall see that I shall cause them to scatter abroad, and every man to go to his home by and by.’ ‘Mary,’ quoth I, ‘if ye do well, ye should set some of them by the heels.’ ‘No,’ quoth he, ‘God defend, for so might we bring a thousand in our tops within an hour; but ye shall see me order them well enough with fair words.’” Then he went down into the street with his cap in his hand, and assured them that the new-comer was one of the King’s servants on an embassy to Scotland. The crowd replied that this could not be true, because the King of Scotland was in France, which indicates a very low state of political knowledge. The host, however, persuaded them that his story was true, and they all with one voice asked when the Duke of Norfolk was coming and with what company. The host came back to Sadler to ask his opinion on this subject. Sadler by this time was converted to the host’s policy of fair words, and replied that Norfolk would be at Doncaster on Candlemas Eve, with none but his household servants. This contented the people and they dispersed, but the occurrence had impressed Sadler: “I assure your lordship the people be very tickle, and methinks in a marvellous strange case and perplexity; for they stare and look for things, and fain would have they cannot tell what.” From Darlington Sadler went to Durham, where he met Bowes, and thence to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where the mayor and aldermen maintained very good order; they showed him how strong the town was, and he remained there waiting for a safe-conduct from Scotland[488].

On his way through Cleveland, Sadler had stayed at Wilton Castle, where Sir William, brother of Sir John Bulmer, was constable. Soon after Sadler left, another traveller from London arrived. This was Thomas Fulthorp, a servant of young Ralph Bulmer, who was bringing a letter from his master to Sir John. Fulthorp told Sir William that the Duke of Norfolk “was not in so good favour with the King as the north country took him to be”; in other words, the Duke’s influence was not sufficient to make the King observe the appointment at Doncaster. Sir William did not believe this, because Sadler had told him the contrary[489].

Fulthorp then went on to Lastingham, where Sir John Bulmer was living. Soon after he reached home, one of Sir John’s servants brought a terrified letter to Wilton. Ralph, who had gone up to London to discover the King’s real intentions, sent word that thirty ships were being prepared to sail against the north, that Aske and Sir George Darcy had accused several people, including Lord Darcy and Sir Robert Constable, and that Norfolk was coming with the worst intentions. Sir John begged his brother to lay a watch along the coasts and to prepare beacons, and warned him not to leave his house “for no fair letters nor words”[490] Sir William may have been used to his brother’s panics, for he paid so little attention to the letter that he did not even trouble to destroy it[491].

Although Sir John was afraid of fair letters and words, he was also alarmed because he had not been summoned to meet the Duke of Norfolk. He wrote to Sir Ralph Evers to inquire the meaning of this, and received a comforting reply. The Duke meant to send for him; the arrangement at London was that either Sir John should attend the Duke with ten servants or his brother Sir William with six[492]. Somewhat relieved, Sir John agreed that his brother should go[493].

Until he could make up his mind what to do, Sir John had been trying to keep the commons quiet, but his servants attended their musters, and he had made quite a collection of their treasonable bills, with the intention of using them in any way that would serve his own interest. One of these bills originated at Kendal. It was a semi-rhyming production, which urged the commons to insist upon having their old customs and tenant right, “to take your farms by a God’s penny, all gressoms and heightenings to be laid down.” It expressed the general idea that the lords and gentlemen had undertaken a pilgrimage to protect Holy Church, and that the commons would support them if they would grant the commons’ demands concerning rent and ingressum[494]. It was shown to Sir John by Priestman, a fugitive from Lincolnshire, who asked him how he liked it. Sir John replied, “Marry, very well, for when two dogs fight for a bone the third will take it up; for this will make the gentlemen and the commons fall forth, and the King shall take up the matter.” A second bill came from the south and began, “Good Northern men, stick to your matter, for the lord of Norfolk comes to beguile you”; it continued with a repetition of Norfolk’s promises, which he had not performed. A third bill ordered the men of Cleveland to take Sir William Bulmer and Sir James Strangways, and the men of the Bishopric to take the Earl of Westmorland, Lord Lumley and Lord Neville, while the men of Pickering and Blackmoor would seize Sir John Bulmer, and all the bands would advance to capture the Duke and force him to keep the promises which he made at Doncaster[495].