Chapter XVIII: The Duke of Norfolk’s Mission (2)

All the prisoners were condemned to die by law martial, the King’s banner being displayed. Not the fifth part would have been convicted by a jury. Some protested that they had been dragged into rebellion against their will. The most part had only one plea, saying, “I came out for fear of my life, and I came forth for fear of loss of all my goods, and I came forth for fear of burning of my house and destroying of my wife and children.”[591] They had not, in fact, turned against the law, they had risen to defend all that the law should have defended for them from Clifford’s police, the thieves of the Black Lands[592]. “A small excuse will be well believed here, where much affection and pity of neighbours doth reign. And, sir, though the number be nothing so great as their deserts did require to have suffered, yet I think the like number hath not been heard of put to execution at one time.” Thus Norfolk wrote to the King; his chief anxiety was lest it should be thought that he had not put a sufficient number to death. He assured his master that every man who had taken a forward part in the rising was to suffer. He had done his best, helped by Sir Christopher Dacre, Sir Thomas Wharton, Sir Thomas Curwen, Sir John Lamplough and the other gentlemen, to try out sufficient matter against more of the prisoners; little as was needed, he had failed, though he still hoped to swell his numbers with some who had fled or were in hiding[593].

No time was lost over the executions, as Norfolk was in haste to be in Northumberland, where Tynedale and Reedsdale were giving trouble. The rebels were hanged in their own villages, “in trees in their gardens to record for memorial” the end of the rebellion[594]. Twelve were hanged in chains in Carlisle for the assault on the city, eleven at Appleby, eight at Penrith, five at Cockermouth and Kirkby Stephen, and so on; scarcely a moorland parish but could show one or two such memorials. Some were hanged in ropes, for iron was “marvellous scarce,” and the chain-makers of Carlisle were unable to meet the demand. The victims were all poor men, farm hands from the fields and artisans of the little towns; probably the bailiff of Embleton was the highest man among them. Only one priest suffered with them, a chaplain of Penrith. The government’s conviction that the clergy were at the bottom of the new rising was mistaken; Norfolk, with the best will in the world, could only implicate one priest, but he made the vicar of Brough-under-Stainmore prisoner, although he had done nothing unlawful since the pardon, except that he had prayed for the Pope. Norfolk wished to know the King’s pleasure as to whether he must suffer or not[595].

Later times have seen assizes more bloody than Norfolk’s in Carlisle—Sussex’ in York after the Rising of the North—Jeffreys’ in the west country after Monmouth’s rebellion. The horror of the Carlisle assizes lies less in their cruelty than in their injustice. Those who take up arms for a political cause must look to be punished for political reasons, but what principle can condemn men miserably poor for defending the little they have? The judges knew well that they were doing an indefensible act, and they spared the people as far as they dared. This is the final indictment of Henry’s government, that his greatest nobleman hanged men whom he knew to be guilty only of having turned against intolerable oppression. Norfolk wrote to Cromwell: “What with the spoiling of them now and the gressing of them so marvellously sore in time past and with increasing of lords’ rents by enclosing, and for lack of the persons of such as shall suffer, this border is sore weaked and especially Westmorland; the more pity they should so deserve, and also that they have been so sore handled in times past, which, as I and all other here think, was the only cause of the rebellion.”[596] Perhaps Norfolk told his conscience (if it ever troubled him) that another man would have made more sure of the King’s favour by greater severity.

When the news of the rebels’ defeat reached the King, he sent orders for the harshest measures to be enforced. His instructions have been quoted so often that a summary of them is sufficient here. First the King thanked all who had served him, especially Norfolk and Sir Christopher Dacre; “you shall have good cause to rejoice of your doing in that behalf.” He heartily approved of Norfolk’s declaration of martial law, and his banner was not to be closed until the country was in such fear as would insure better behaviour.

Bigod, the Friar of Knaresborough, Leache, “the vicar of Penrith,” Chancellor Towneley and Pickering of Bridlington or as many of them as were in Norfolk’s hands, were to be sent to the King. The lands and goods of these and any other traitors who owned such were to be seized, and the King would consider the question of rewarding faithful subjects with them.

Finally Norfolk was to proceed to Sawley, Hexham, Newminster, Lanercost, St Agatha’s at Richmond, and such other monasteries as had “made any manner of resistance,” and to cause the monks or canons found faulty “to be tied up, without further delay or ceremony, to the terrible example of others; wherein we think you shall do us high service.”[597] This is one of the most famous commands King Henry ever gave, and nobody knows whether it was obeyed. This ignorance is due to the fact that from 24 February to 5 March there is a blank in Norfolk’s correspondence with the King. The Duke intended to ride from Carlisle to Hexham, there to suppress the Abbey, take order for Tynedale and Reedsdale, hear any cases of sedition in Northumberland, and take the oaths of the gentlemen. From Hexham he meant to go to Durham and thence to York, “sitting in execution” at both cities[598].

His own account of this expedition is lost. He did not go to Newminster in Northumberland, for it was not suppressed until August 1537, when all the monks received pensions[599]. It is not known why the King named it as a centre of sedition. Nothing is known about the fate of Lanercost Priory and its inmates, nor about that of St Agatha’s at Richmond. Sawley was suppressed by Norfolk’s orders, though not by the Duke in person, and the Abbot and some of the monks were executed[600]. Norfolk went to Hexham, but in his next letters, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, there is no account of what he did there. A letter to Cromwell about the suppression of Hexham Priory exists, however, and as there is no mention in it of the “tying up” of any monks, it is probable that Henry’s orders arrived too late, that Norfolk had already closed the King’s banner in token that martial law was ended, and that he therefore had a sufficient excuse for sparing the canons.

A fragment of Norfolk’s reply to the King’s famous letter has been preserved by a Cumberland historian, although the original is lost. No doubt if it still existed the problem of the monks’ fate would be solved, for if martial law was no longer in force Norfolk would have no power of summary execution. The remains of the letter are as follows:

“Aglionby, I doubt not, or now hath shewed you highness what was done
at Carlisle. And though none were quartered because I knew not your
pleasure therein before: yet all the threescore and fourteen be hanged
in chains or ropes upon gallows or trees, in all such towns as they
did dwell in. And whereas your Majesty would have sent the vicar of
Penrith to you; it is not of Penrith, but of Brough that your grace
doth mean, for there is none such; for whom I have sent to my lord of
Cumberland, for I left him in his keeping. And also I have for Doctor
Towneley, and doubt not within three days to have them both with me,
and so shall send them up.”[601]

In order to conclude the matter of the rebellion in Cumberland, it is necessary to look forward for some weeks. Sir Thomas Curwen, the sheriff of Cumberland, received anonymous letters accusing the Abbot of Holm Cultram of treason. With Sir Thomas Wharton and others he paid a secret visit to the Abbey on 22 May 1537, collected enough evidence to hang the Abbot, and forwarded it to Norfolk. As usual the Abbot’s fate is uncertain[602].

The Cumberland magistrates were no doubt trying to regain Norfolk’s favour by their zeal in the case of the Abbot, because they had incurred his displeasure in another matter. Two months after the Duke’s session in Carlisle, he heard that the bodies of all the rebels who were executed had been cut down and buried. He rebuked the magistrates with “quick messages,” and ordered them to search out the ill-doers. They sent him nine or ten confessions in reply, but he did not consider these nearly enough. “It is a small number concerning seventy-four that hath been taken down, wherein I think your Majesty hath not been well served.” Norfolk asked the King on 8 May how these offenders were to be punished; they were all women—the widows, mothers and daughters of the dead men. Of all the records these brief confessions are the most heart-breaking and can least bear description. The widows and their neighbours helped each other. Seven or eight women together would wind the corpse and bury it in the nearest churchyard, secretly, at nightfall or daybreak. Sometimes they were turned from their purpose by the frightened priest, and then the husband’s body must be buried by a dyke-side out of sanctified ground, or else brought again more secretly than ever and laid in the churchyard under cover of night. All was done by women, save in two cases when the brother and cousin of two of the dead men were said to have died from the “corruption” of the bodies they had cut down[603]. The Earl of Cumberland was blamed by Norfolk for the loss of the bodies, and it must be counted to the Earl’s credit that he was ashamed to look too closely into so pitiful a story. Norfolk wrote to Cromwell:

“I do perceive by your letter that ye would know whether such persons
as were put to execution in Westmorland and Cumberland were taken down
and buried by my commandment or not: undoubtedly, my good lord, if I
had consented thereunto, I would I had hanged by them; but on my
troth, it is 8 or 9 days past sith I heard first thereof, and then was
here with me a servant of my lord of Cumberland’s called Swalowfield
dwelling about Penrith, by whom I sent such a quick message to my said
lord, because he hath the rule in Cumberland as warden, and is sheriff
of Westmorland and hath neither advertised me thereof, nor hath not
made search who hath so highly offended his Majesty, and also
commanding him to search for the same with all diligence, that I doubt
not it shall evidently appear it was done against my will.”[604]

The Duke was anxious to shift the blame on to someone else’s shoulders, as the King was very angry at this defiance of his authority. He remarked characteristically that he did not believe it “had come of women’s heads only,” although the depositions do not mention the names of any living men concerned in it. On 22 May Cromwell insinuated that Norfolk must have countenanced the offenders, and sent most positive orders that somebody must be punished, but the fate of the women is unknown[605].

To return to the main course of our narrative, Norfolk was at Hexham on Monday 26 February. There he met Sir Reynold Carnaby, the farmer of the Priory, and put him in possession. The canons were turned out “with very good exhortation to the inhabitants” of Hexham uttered by Norfolk. With the Duke and his train in their midst they were “very tractable and sorry for what they had done amiss.” They professed themselves ready to obey Carnaby “as their officer,” when they saw Cromwell’s orders to that effect, though without these he was likely to have been “discouraged.” Norfolk asked him if the canons had done anything contrary to their allegiance since the pardon. Carnaby answered, “No, otherwise I would have been an untrue man to conceal it.”[606] Sir Reynold was already held in evil report among his neighbours, and if he had informed against the canons his life would not have been safe. The people of the neighbourhood loved their Priory, and to this day Carnaby is spoken of with hatred in the countryside.

From Hexham Norfolk went to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where he stayed for some time, chiefly engaged in his second task of bringing the Borders into comparative peace[607]. He visited Prudhoe Castle, Sir Thomas Percy’s home, and gave it into the keeping of the Percys’ deadly foe Sir Reynold Carnaby; but he first had an inventory made of the goods in the castle, and redelivered them to Lady Percy by bill indented. He seems to have been touched by the desolation of Lady Percy, “a good woman” who obeyed him in all things. She gave him the Abbot of Sawley’s supplication, which seemed to the casual reader so innocent but proved in the end evidence sufficient to take five men’s lives. Lady Percy sent it to Norfolk, no doubt in obedience to a demand for papers; if she had read it she could scarcely have guessed that it was worth her husband’s head. Norfolk thought it would “touch the Abbot very sore” but does not seem to have considered it compromising to Percy. Lady Percy was setting out for London, to be near Sir Thomas, who was in the Tower. She herself carried Norfolk’s letters[608].

The Earl of Northumberland was preparing to surrender his estates into the King’s hands. He was stricken by his last illness. To Norfolk’s great indignation he had sent down servants to sell the woods on his lands in Yorkshire, probably in a last attempt to raise money to satisfy some of his creditors. “As good to pull down the houses as destroy the woods,”[609] wrote the Duke, and sent peremptory orders to Topcliff that nothing of the sort was to be attempted[610].

On 3 March the Privy Council sent Norfolk special orders concerning Sir Robert Constable. The King had despatched letters which bade him repair to court; the messenger found him at Flamborough and “he made no satisfactory answer to the letters.” Norfolk was ordered to send word to Sir Ralph Ellerker at Hull and Sir Ralph Evers at Scarborough to watch the ports so that Sir Robert might not escape by sea; at the same time the Duke was to advise him to obey the King, and if he did not at once address himself to the journey, he must be sent up by a serjeant-at-arms[611]. Norfolk did not think that Sir Robert was likely to fly, though if he intended to do so, he could take ship from Flamborough, which was his own town, without anyone being the wiser. Constable seems to have gone up on receiving Norfolk’s letters, as nothing is ever said about his arrest, and it was not likely to pass off quietly in the midst of his own country. The King also desired that Dr Pickering should be sent up, and Norfolk promised to arrest him at once[612].

After suppressing the lesser monasteries within his commission Norfolk had about three hundred religious persons on his hands wanting capacities, which he had no power to give; neither had he a commission for levying the subsidy. These were mere hitches, however, and he was soon to find himself face to face with a serious difficulty[613]. On Thursday 8 March he rode to the city of Durham, and next day sat on the indictments of about twenty offenders; but before the beginning of the session he discovered that the Bishopric of Durham was not included in his commission. All the country had come in, everything was ready for the trial, and Norfolk had no legal power to proceed with it. He decided, with the advice of his council, to keep secret his lack of authority, and accordingly the jury was charged and the indictments were found[614]. Thirteen offenders, including the Priory porter and two of the Priory cooks[615], would have been condemned next day in the ordinary course of justice, but Norfolk graciously respited them until after Low Sunday [7 April 1537], as he was too busy to wait in Durham for an answer to the letters which he despatched to the King and Cromwell.

In these letters Norfolk humbly asked pardon for not having perused his commission more carefully; in future he would have such documents read by counsel. He was about to return to Newcastle-upon-Tyne for a brief visit devoted to Border affairs, and after that he proposed to ride to York by way of Beverley and Hull, taking with him from those towns the offenders whom Ellerker had admitted to bail after Bigod’s rising[616]. Norfolk was very anxious to know how many the King wished him to arraign; his own inclination was to be sparing of executions. “Folks think the last justice at Carlisle great, and if more than twenty suffer at Durham and York it will be talked about.”[617]

The King received these letters on 17 March; in his reply he thanked Norfolk for his proceedings, sent him a complete commission, and assured him that he did not consider him to blame for the omission in the last one. The King particularly desired the conviction of Hutton of Snaith, against whom, as he understood, new matter had been found; “we and our Council thought his assembly on pretence of making a supplication no less than high treason, even if this matter had not turned up.” Nothing is known of Hutton’s “assembly.” The man is something of a mystery, as no account remains of the rising round Snaith, which was part of Darcy’s country. Hutton, along with Aske and Constable, was excepted by name out of the intended Yorkshire pardons in November[618]. A theory that seems to meet the circumstances is that Snaith rose at the beginning of the rebellion, perhaps earlier than the East Riding, and sent a private supplication to the King, as the people of Louth did. This petition, the first to come from Yorkshire, might have especially angered Henry. If this were the case, Hutton’s assembly must have occurred during the period covered by the pardon, yet the King thought it enough to hang him without further evidence, a clear sign of the way things were going. It is of course possible that his offence was committed after the pardon, but in that case Norfolk need not have waited for fresh evidence before acting against him.

The King’s further orders were that Norfolk must bring to trial the Abbot of Jervaux[619] and the quondam Abbot of Fountains, for whose apprehension he was heartily thanked. If enough matter could be found against the Abbot of Sawley, as the King did not doubt, remembering his supplication to Sir Thomas Percy, he was to be disposed of with the others. The men let out on bail by Sir Ralph Ellerker were left to Norfolk’s discretion. The King perceived from the evidence before him that the Friars Observant were “disciples of the Bishop of Rome and sowers of sedition”; therefore the Duke must arrest the friars of that order and imprison them in the houses of other friars, strictly forbidding any man to converse with them until the King’s pleasure towards them was known. Finally the King was about to send for Lord Darcy, as Norfolk himself had advised in a lost letter[620].

Lord Darcy lay quietly at Pontefract Castle, victualling and garrisoning it at his own cost. He sent Sir Arthur Darcy to Norfolk with instructions to show him that all was quiet round Pontefract, the castle prepared, and Darcy ready at his command. Sir Arthur was to ask for a copy of the King’s oath, which Darcy and his friends and retainers had taken in Pontefract Priory, and he must consult the Duke about Thomas Strangways, Darcy’s steward[621], who had carried to Aske in York Darcy’s messages—and some of his own, too[622]. Strangways’ cousin, Sir Oswald Wolsthrope, had warned him that Cromwell bore him no goodwill, and he had gone to Whitby Abbey and the parts about Guisborough in order that Darcy and his friends might not be troubled on his account, although he still trusted to the King’s pardon. He had offered to leave Darcy’s service, but his master was loth to part with him unless Norfolk advised him to do so.

Sir Arthur Darcy was with the Duke in York on 9 February. Norfolk intended to go to Sawley in person to expel the monks, and as Sir Arthur was the farmer, he was expected to attend the Duke with a company of friends and kinsmen suitable to the occasion. He wrote to his father, requesting him to send such a company to join him on Wednesday at Leeds[623]. Darcy asked for further particulars. Were the men to be harnessed, and were they to be paid, and how many must there be[624]? On 10 February, the day after he received Sir Arthur’s letter, Lord Darcy wrote to Robert Aske, desiring him to deliver secretly to the bearer, Darcy’s constable, all the arrows, bows and spears which had been taken from the castle during the insurrection[625]. It must have occurred to Darcy that this action might be misinterpreted, when he asked for secrecy; or perhaps he was afraid of provoking the commons, who were still on the alert when they saw a royal castle being put into a state of defence; for this took place while Richmond was still in a state of turmoil and before the rising in Cumberland. These considerations might make secrecy desirable, although otherwise it was unnecessary. It was perfectly natural that Aske should take arms from a captured fortress, and equally natural that Darcy should want them back again after the insurrection when he was suddenly called upon to equip an armed force. The King had laid great stress on the refortification of Pontefract, and Darcy was carrying out these orders as well as he could, knowing that any delay or inefficiency would be turned against him and reported as proof of a traitorous disposition.

Sir Arthur Darcy answered his father’s questions on 12 February. He wanted thirty or forty “clean fellows” besides his own servants; the well-horsed men must be provided with spears and the worse with bows, and he was willing to pay their costs. Norfolk sent Darcy thanks for his good offers; he advised him to put away Strangways, but if the man had not offended since the pardon he might live where he chose without fear[626].

Darcy sent the men, but the Duke’s plans were altered by the rising in Cumberland, and Sir Arthur rode with him to the musters at Barnard Castle. “I beg you to be no less nigh to his person than ye would be to me,” wrote his father to him[627]. When news was received at Barnard Castle of the rebels’ defeat, Norfolk gave Sir Arthur his choice of riding with him to Cumberland or departing with his own men to Sawley. Sir Richard Tempest had been sent to Sawley, where he turned out the monks and put three of his servants into possession. Sir Arthur prudently decided to look after his goods. He came to Sawley none too soon, for he found Tempest’s servants wasting the Abbey stuff and collecting his rents. The abbot had been allowed to depart, and at first Sir Arthur could not learn where he was. Before he left, however, secret information was brought and twelve of his servants hunted down the abbot and made him prisoner; the poor man protested that he was fit neither to ride nor walk, and had done no wrong, for the commons had forced him to re-enter the Abbey against his will. Sir Arthur took depositions from some of the abbot’s tenants which, he said, showed that the religious were the stirrers of all this pestilent sedition “and not only that but would have eftsoons quickened and revived the same.” When Sir Arthur was leaving the Abbey, he heard that Leache of Lincolnshire “and others of his like” were hiding in Lonsdale. He sent out his men in search of them, and rode himself to Kettlewell, where they were said to be hidden, but did not find them.

On 25 February he returned to Pontefract and sent a report to Cromwell. The country was quiet, thanks to Norfolk’s severities. His father was in the castle, ready at the King’s command, “but his disease grows upon him and he desires licence to withdraw and live with a small company till he be out of debt.” He had dismissed Strangways[628]. On 22 March Darcy wrote to the King, suggesting that as the country was in such quiet it was no longer necessary to keep a full garrison at Pontefract. He wished to come up to the King at Easter, even though he were able to travel “but six miles a day.”[629] Shortly afterwards he was commanded to repair to the King’s presence. It may have been on this occasion, or perhaps earlier, that Darcy wrote down a number of memoranda, in which mention is made of his journey up to court. The notes are disjointed, not always intelligible, and chiefly connected with his public life. Among them this passage occurs:

“Item, to counsel with Sir Arthur for bestowing of my servants or
helping [them] with fees, annuities or [other] ways: and himself. For
I peremptor feel my broken heart, and great diseases, without remedy,
to the death of [my] body, which God not offended I most desire, after
His high pleasure and my soul’s health: and He be my judge never lost
King a truer servant and subject without any cause but lack of
furniture and by false reports and pick-thanks. God save the King:
though I be without recovery.”[630]

Towards the end of March 1537, Lord Darcy set out for London.

On the 22nd Norfolk was in York, resting a little after all his riding, but otherwise as busy as ever. As he was staying for two or three days in the same place “about execution,” he thought it a good opportunity to hunt out the devisers of the articles of the spirituality, which the divines at Pontefract had drawn up and submitted to him at Doncaster. About this matter he thought that Dr Dakyn, William Bowyer the alderman of York, and Friar Pickering could disclose most, and he sent them up to London. Dakyn had written out the articles for the council of divines, and he could tell “what sort the Archbishop was of,” but Robert Bowes and other gentlemen bore witness that Dakyn had stood firmly to the King’s part in the first insurrection, and had endangered his life in consequence of his loyalty. Bowyer could tell much if he chose, for he had been in Lord Darcy’s favour and was “as naughty a knave as any.” Norfolk advised Cromwell that Pickering should be gently handled and given fair words. He would be able to give information about the prior of Bridlington and Sir Robert Constable, who was a close friend of the prior. By this means Cromwell ought to be able to discover any offences of Darcy or Constable since the pardon[631].

Norfolk had taken Aske with him when he rode north, though he regarded him with less suspicion than scorn. It must have been a terrible journey for Aske. Did he at last abandon all belief in Henry’s faith? Or did he still hope that a northern parliament would be called and that it might carry the King and the nobles along with it in a violent reaction? Whatever the thoughts of his heart, with Norfolk he assumed confidence. “The man is marvellous glorious, often time boasting to me that he hath such sure espial that nothing can be done nor imagined against the King’s Highness, but he will shortly give me warning thereof,” wrote the Duke scoffingly. He did not believe a word of this; fear in his mind was the instrument of power, never love. Aske might boast of his influence over the commons, but the gentlemen were never tired of telling Norfolk how much they hated him and that he was the only cause and head of the insurrection, the most guilty of all:—

“I have by policy brought him to desire me to give him licence to ride
to London, and have promised to write a letter to your Lordship for
him; which letter I pray you take of like sort as ye did the other I
wrote for Sir Thomas Percy. If neither of them both come never in this
country again I think neither true nor honest men would be sorry
thereof, nor in likewise for my lord Darcy nor Sir Robert Constable.
Hemlock is no worse in a good salad than I think the remaining of any
of them in these parts should be ill to the common wealth.”

Norfolk believed that the articles were Aske’s work and that Sir Robert Constable and Lord Darcy were the most earnest maintainers of them. For both these men Aske had a great love, and the King would do well to give him secret interviews, “and wade with him with fair words, as though he had great trust in him. This would make him cough out as much as he knows concerning” them. Nevertheless the Duke could not find the slightest sign that they had stirred sedition since the pardon; on the contrary they did their best to prevent and put down Bigod’s rising[632]. Norfolk caused Aske to draw up several written statements concerning the rising. One was a list of the spoils in which he had shared, though he had never plundered anyone himself[633]. Another concerned his correspondence with his brother Christopher, the articles of the clergy, his intercourse with the Earl of Northumberland, and his promise to Levening[634]. The third was about the taking of Pontefract[635]. On 24 March Aske left York for London, with Norfolk’s letter of recommendation to Cromwell and another to the King, which Cromwell was to see “weighed accordingly.”[636]

On the same day the Duke was at York sitting in justice on those who had been concerned in Bigod’s rising. It may be presumed that some were condemned, but this is not certain, and two at least were acquitted on the ground that they had been dragged into the business against their wills. One of these was called Lutton; the other was William Levening of Acklam, the gentleman who had appealed to Aske, Darcy and Constable to help him[637]. Norfolk saw at once that there would be trouble about this acquittal. It was difficult to find anything incriminating against the leaders of the Pilgrimage since the pardon; it could be proved, not only by Levening’s confession but by Aske’s own statement that they had promised to help Levening. If he was a traitor, the three leaders were guilty of misprision of treason and there was a sufficient case for the crown. It is true that they had not in fact concealed the matter, for Aske had reported it to the Duke, but such a fine point could easily be overlooked in the sweeping measures of Tudor justice[638]. Levening’s acquittal was therefore very inconvenient, and the King demanded the names of the offending jurors. Norfolk replied that he would find them out; he advised the King not to summon them to London or it would be said “that men should be compelled to pass otherwise than their conscience should lead them.”[639] No doubt he was thinking of the scandal and indignation which Wycliff’s case had caused[640]. If the King would let Norfolk come himself, he would bring with him “the greatest stickers in the King’s part to have the indictments pass,” who would explain the matter. “Some that were acquit was not without good grounds,” and if Lutton had been condemned the Duke would have reprieved him. Sir Ralph Ellerker, who was the only witness against him, said that if he had been on the jury “he would not for all his lands have cast him.”[641]

The Council sent in reply strict orders that the Levening affair should be “boulted out.” The King thought Levening’s treason manifest; therefore the jurors must be examined[642]. As to this intimidating others, as long as the King gained by that, he seems to have cared little what justice lost. Norfolk, who was very busy, delayed to send the names[643], and probably contrived never to show a full list, for he saw clearly that the north was not yet ready for a full revelation of the King’s methods; but Thomas Delariver, one of the gentlemen on the jury, went up to the King. He had not been named by the sheriff, but Norfolk trusted him and Sir Henry Gascoigne so much that he put them on the jury in spite of this, and they were the principal “stickers” on the King’s behalf[644]. In a deposition which he made concerning Levening’s trial he displayed the secret deliberations of the jurors and the inside of the case. Sir Ralph Ellerker was the chief witness against Levening; Delariver, Sir Henry Gascoigne, Thwaites of Maston and two other jurors thought that his evidence was enough, and were ready to find the prisoner guilty of death. John Donnyngton, Henry Rasshall, Wentworth and four more held the contrary. Some of them were Levening’s neighbours, and they believed that the evidence was given maliciously, because the King had granted Ellerker some of Levening’s lands. Delariver urged that it was impossible the King should have disposed of a man’s lands before he was attainted, and pressed them to give a verdict of guilty. They debated the point from 9 o’clock on Friday morning until Saturday night. The majority said that if Levening was guilty, so were all Bigod’s company, and yet Lutton had been acquitted. The others replied that Lutton was less guilty than Levening, for he had gone with Bigod against his will, and had substantiated his plea by flying to the Ellerkers. Finally Delariver declared that an acquittal would be “the destruction of us all.” Between 12 and 1 o’clock on Saturday an usher came from the Duke to ask if they had yet agreed on their verdict. The majority answered that they had, and the rest, for very weariness, let silence assent. The Duke of Norfolk came to the Castle, and just as they were going before him Delariver heard Rasshall say to Thwaites that old Sir Marmaduke Constable would rather lose a hundred pounds than that Levening should be condemned. On hearing this Delariver exclaimed that he would die rather than find Levening not guilty:—

“The Duke then rose up and went to his lodging, appointing his men
Scarlit and Brigham to keep the jury more straitly; who took away from
them all that might keep them warm. At night the Duke sent Leonard
Beckwith and Mansfield to them and they fell all to prayer and rose up
and agreed to acquit Levening; for some of them would not have agreed
to the contrary to have died in the cause.”[645]

The jury may have escaped the King’s anger; at least no record of their punishment remains.

Norfolk had further trouble in the matter of sending prisoners up to London. Cromwell had sent for sixteen, and later the King added five more. The Duke explained that he would have to send a guard of at least thirty horsemen with them, and he could not spare so many before his second visit to Durham and Newcastle[646]. By way of economising escorts, he suggested that letters under the privy seal might be sent to summon some of the intended prisoners to court; this would be quite safe in the cases of Sir Stephen Hamerton, Nicholas Tempest and the Prior of Bridlington, who were in no fear of arrest[647]. Norfolk was surprised that Gregory Conyers was named among the proposed arrests; no man had done better service than he at the taking of Bigod, and it would be a mistake to send him up in custody “unless there be pregnant matter against him.”[648] Conyers was probably sent for on the accusation of Sir Francis Bigod. The King was quite willing that as many as could be trusted should come up to London as free men[649]. Sir Thomas Tempest was to have charge of the prisoners, among whom was Sir John Bulmer[650].

Norfolk was at Newborough during the first days of April[651]. He rode thence to Newcastle-upon-Tyne about Border affairs, and was at Durham on the 11th[652]. There he received letters from the King, dated the 8th, which contained the news that Lord Darcy, Sir Robert Constable and Robert Aske had been arrested, and ordered Norfolk to take inventories of their goods, and seize all their rents and evidences, “so that they may be forthcoming to our use if” the prisoners “shall not be purged of the treasons whereof they be now accused.” In a postscript the King added that this was an additional reason for prolonging Norfolk’s stay in the north, as, in his own elliptical phrase, “Lord Darcy, Sir Robert Constable and Robert Aske ... we doubt not will by their confessions detect such matter touching those parts as we would trust no man there so well with the execution of as yourself.”[653]

On 12 April Norfolk was busy with the trials of the prisoners whom he had been obliged to leave alive at Durham on his first visit. The Earl of Westmorland had arrested thirteen men for some unidentified disturbance, perhaps for “ungoodly handling” Lancaster Herald, or for threatening to hang Westmorland’s bailiff. One of these prisoners had escaped or had been acquitted. Norfolk had picked up two prisoners in Cumberland, John Follansby, gentleman, and Henry Brasse; their offences are never mentioned. Another prisoner, Michael Swayne, appeared in the interval between the first and the second assize[654]. The Sheriff of Yorkshire sent Hutton of Snaith to Durham by Norfolk’s command, as no sufficient matter could be found against him in his own county; “nor would have been here,” wrote Norfolk, “unless great diligence and circumspection had been used.” Of these sixteen prisoners there was “not one acquit,” as the Duke triumphantly noted, and they were hanged in chains near their homes. Norfolk boasted to the King that people were in such fear that no one now alive was likely to see another insurrection. The King’s visit to the north would establish its loyalty for ever. He need not stay for more than six or eight days, and there would be no lack of food “after the fashion of the country” nor of forage, if he did not come until late in July. Many full-grown people had never seen the King, and the King of Scots, “your scant kind nephew,” was shortly to return “into his proud populous realm.” Those who thought that the King could not come in safety without a very large company had only to see the state of the country to be undeceived[655]. After finishing the assizes at Durham by attending to the restitution of spoils, Norfolk went to Sheriffhutton and took up his abode in the King’s castle there[656]. He was very much occupied with Border affairs, which will be dealt with later, but he did not forget the King’s order to seize the goods of the Pilgrimage leaders[657].

On 24 April William Blytheman wrote to Dr Legh from York. He confirmed Norfolk’s account of the peaceful state of the country. Every malefactor was afraid; the spirit of the people had changed much since the insurrection. Complaints were no longer heard against the visitation of the monasteries: “I dare well say there is no religious man that will avouch any grief for that matter.” By midsummer another visitation might be instituted without any danger of opposition. The gentlemen whom Norfolk was sending as prisoners to London in the charge of Sir Thomas Tempest and Robert Bowes had just passed through York[658].

On Monday 7 May Norfolk received letters from the King and Cromwell[659] accompanied by the indictments charging Lord Darcy, Robert Aske, Sir Robert Constable, Sir Thomas Percy, Sir Francis Bigod, Sir John Bulmer and Margaret his wife, Sir Stephen Hamerton, George Lumley, Ralph Bulmer, Nicholas Tempest, James Cockerell, quondam prior of Guisborough, William Wood, Prior of Bridlington, Adam Sedbar, Abbot of Jervaux, and William Thirsk, quondam abbot of Fountains, with treason and conspiracy against the King[660]. According to the usual procedure, these indictments must be found a true bill by a Yorkshire jury before the offenders could be tried in London. At first Norfolk was puzzled by the fact that there were two indictments exactly the same, but after consulting his council, he concluded that he was intended “to have two divers inquests; which, if ye do so I think ye do well, for they being so kept that one of them shall not know what an other doth, shall make them the more quick to find the matter.” This was a method of guiding the hands of justice which entirely recommended itself to the Duke’s ingenious mind. So many gentlemen from all parts of the shire were with him on their own business that he was able to hold the assize at once, and he expected “to have the greatest appearance that was seen at York of many years, on Tuesday at night and Wednesday in the morning.” He was careful to provide for as many juries as might be needed—“we shall lack no number, if I should have four inquests.... My good lord, I will not spare to put the best friends these men have upon one of the inquests, to prove their affections whether they will rather serve his majesty truly and frankly in this matter, or else to favour their friends. And if they will not find then they may have thanks according to their cankered hearts. And, as for the other inquest, I will appoint such that I shall no more doubt than of myself.” Everything was being done in the greatest haste; Cromwell need not doubt that the matter would be found “according to the King’s pleasure,” and the result would be in his hands by Friday night[661].

Accordingly on Wednesday 9 May the Duke was at York amidst the fullest assembly of gentlemen that had been seen there for forty years; no one who was still able to sit his horse was missing. Norfolk selected his two juries, one of twenty-one and the other of twenty men. The first was composed chiefly of kinsmen of the Pilgrimage leaders. Sir Christopher Danby, “cousin german removed to the lord Darcy” was the foreman; Sir Edward Gower and Sir Roger Chambley, Constable’s sons-in-law, five more gentlemen related or allied to Darcy, and John Aske, Robert’s brother, were all on the “quest,” and their kinship to the accused was carefully noted by Norfolk himself.

As to the other jury, the foreman was Sir James Strangways, and it included Darcy’s enemy Sir Henry Saville, Thomas Delariver who distinguished himself at Levening’s trial, Nicholas Rudston who had been as deep as any man in the first rising and later turned King’s evidence, and Gregory Conyers, who ran Bigod down. It will be observed that Rudston was one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution in Constable’s case, yet he sat on the grand jury. All the others were men whom Norfolk could trust, though two or three were related to Bigod or the Bulmers[662].

The position must have been clear to everyone present. If the first jury dared to differ from the second, who were certain to find the prisoners guilty, their decision would be declared a traitorous favouring of their kinsmen and another jury would be called from among the gentlemen whom Norfolk had in readiness. The jurors might compromise themselves, while they could not save their friends. It seems almost incredible that such a thing should have been done in England. It is true that juries were easily bribed or intimidated, and Levening’s case shows how much family politics had to do with a gentleman’s sense of justice, but Wycliff’s case and Sir Thomas More’s charming story of the juror who would not agree with the rest for the sake of good company indicate that men were not devoid of conscience then any more than they are now, and that there was a standard of true justice, however much below it the actual practice might fall. It must have attracted notice that so many kinsmen of the accused were on one jury; but Darcy and Constable between them were related to most of the gentry of the north, and the selection might almost have happened by chance, if Norfolk’s letter did not prove that it was purposely done. John Aske’s appointment was a different matter. In the days when even distant relationship was a binding tie, it must have appeared still more monstrous than it does now that one brother should be forced to pass sentence on another. John was probably too weak and too much frightened to protest, but why did Norfolk venture upon such an outrage? He had warned the King against the scandal that would follow any public punishment of the jury which had acquitted Levening. Yet little more than a month later he did not hesitate to commit this far greater abuse of power. It is hard for us to-day to imagine an adequate motive for such an action. No doubt Norfolk wished to be able to say “The prisoners must have been guilty: their own friends convicted them”; and he seems to have been moved partly by vanity, wishing to show the King and Cromwell that he could do anything with the northern gentlemen. He boasted that if he had known them before as he did now Levening would not still be alive[663].

The juries were sworn, the Duke addressed them, and they retired separately. Shortly they returned and found the indictments “billa vera.” The fate of the Pilgrims was soon decided, for if the chance of acquittal by their own friends was small, with a London jury it would be smaller still.

The business of the court was not yet done. After the indictments of the Pilgrims the case was taken of two Carthusian monks who denied the King’s supremacy. These were John Rochester and James Whalworth of the London Charterhouse, who had been sent to the Charterhouse at Hull. Rochester had written to Norfolk in March, offering to explain before the Duke and his council how much the King was deceived by those who persuaded him to assume the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England; he begged Norfolk to help him to the King’s presence, for he would rather die than hide the truth[664]. Norfolk forwarded the letter to Cromwell, remarking rather peevishly that the monk should never have been sent north, as he had always expressed his opinions openly, and that he certainly ought to be “justified” in the south[665]. Norfolk, however, was obliged to see to both of them himself. They might have recanted at their trial, but they both stood firm. “Two more wilful religious men in manner unlearned I think never suffered,” wrote Norfolk. They were condemned to be executed on Friday 11 May[666].

The indictments were despatched to London, where they were received in plenty of time for the trials, which began on Tuesday 15 May 1537.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XVIII

Note A. Staveley’s dates are entirely incomprehensible. We have done
our best to construct a reasonable chronology from the facts.

Note B. It is not clear from the accounts whether Sir Christopher
Dacre came up and attacked the commons in the rear, or whether he was
already in the town. Wilfred Holme says that five hundred horse “came
forth” from the city; as he does not give the names of the leaders, he
may have been thinking of Thomas Clifford’s troop, which certainly
came out of the castle. On the whole it seems most probable that Dacre
was not in Carlisle but came upon the rebels while riding to the
relief of the town.

Note C. The problem of the fate of Holm Cultram Abbey is rather
curious. Abbot Carter had undoubtedly taken part in the second
insurrection. Yet he was never attainted, for on the attainder of an
abbot the King seized the abbey, as in the cases of Whalley and
Barlings, but Holm Cultram was surrendered by the Abbot and monks on 6
March 1537–8[667]. The Abbot who conducted this surrender was Gawen
Borrodale, a monk of the house who had been accused of poisoning a
former abbot, Abbot Ireby[668]. Borrodale had been appointed before 23
January 1537–8[669]. It is possible that Abbot Carter escaped
attainder by a natural death. Gasquet suggests this, but confuses
Carter with his predecessor, Ireby[670].

Note D. The third of Aske’s papers is entered separately in the
Letters and Papers, but it was obviously written before his
imprisonment, and should probably be placed with the other two.

Note E. On 13 May 1537 the King desired the Duke of Norfolk to go in
person to suppress the Priory of Bridlington and the Abbey of
Jervaux[671], as the Duke had offered to perform the work, if it was
the King’s pleasure, in a letter of 10 May:—“I think I should be at
the suppressing because the neighbouring country is populous and the
houses greatly beloved by the people, and also well stored with cattle
and other things that will not come all to light so well if I be
absent.” He suggested that he should take with him Mr Magnus, Sir
George Lawson, Leonard Beckwith, Blytheman and his own two servants
Uvedale and Rous, to survey the lands. He remarked frankly, “these men
look for none of the farms, and therefore will see to your profit.”

Jervaux was “well covered with lead,” and as to Bridlington, Norfolk
went into raptures over the roofs there. “It has a barn all covered
with lead, the largest, widest, and deepest roofed that ever I saw.”
Altogether there must be at least three or four thousand pounds’ worth
of lead, and that so near the sea that it could be easily taken
away[672]. Norfolk was at Bridlington from 16 to 18 May. Inventories
were made of all the goods and the best part were sent to
Sheriffhutton. The priory church of Bridlington was also the parish
church for 1500 “houseling people” [communicants]; Norfolk suggested
that part of the land might be granted to the parishioners, to keep up
the church and the shrine of St John, and to repair the harbour, which
was a dangerous place[673].

Even in the matter of the monasteries, Norfolk was not entirely
trusted. Cromwell wrote that commissioners would be sent down from
court to survey the lands, estimate the value of the lead, and so
forth. If £20 would repair the haven, it might be done. The King did
not intend to make grants of the land till Michaelmas, when he would
put in substantial men to comfort the tenants and stay the country. As
to the shrine, it was to be taken down, in order that the people might
not be seduced into offering money there; all the jewels and plate
were to be sent direct to London, except such as Norfolk chose to buy.
The cattle and corn might be sold at once[674]. These orders were
executed before 5 June, when Tristram Teshe carried to London the
tenths and two chests full of the gold and jewels taken from the
Bridlington shrine. Among them were three “wrought tablets” of which
Norfolk wrote to the King “if I durst ... be a thief I would have
stolen them to have sent them to the Queen’s Grace, but now your
Highness having them may give them unto her without offence.” There
was also “a proper thing of _radix Jesse_ to be set upon an altar.”
There remained the silver plate; Norfolk said contemptuously that it
was very old and had better be broken up[675], and no doubt it was
destroyed according to his advice. The church itself is said to have
been demolished[676].