Insurrection

by Susan Loughlin

  On 8 April, the king wrote to Norfolk instructing him to seize the goods of Darcy, Constable and Aske, who were committed to ward, and for inventories to be taken so that they might be forthcoming to his use if Lord Darcy, Sir Robert Constable and Robert Aske were not acquitted of the treasons of which they were accused.70 Clearly there is here a presumption of guilt prior to their trial – guilty until proven innocent.

  Aske, Lord Hussey and Darcy were interrogated on 11 April and 106 questions put to them. This extensive set of questions included a number with regard to bishops of the ‘New Learning’ and they were asked whether they favoured the insurrection in order that those bishops might be punished? They were asked whether they grudged against the king’s title of Supreme Head. Darcy was asked why he yielded Pontefract Castle when the rebels had no artillery to besiege it and the king’s army was not far off. He was also asked about the badges of the Five Wounds and whether or not they had been newly made or were left over from his time in Spain.71 Their answers to each specific point are not recorded at this juncture. Hussey, however, stated that he was not privy to the rebels’ acts and had not led them.72

  Aske was examined in the Tower of London on 11 April before Dr Leigh, Dr Petre and the Lieutenant of the Tower. During this examination, Aske maintained that the suppression of the monasteries was the greatest cause of the insurrection. In his own hand, he explained that the suppression meant that the service of God was much diminished: a great number of Masses were left unsaid, the temple of God pulled down and the ornaments and relics of the Church irreverently used.73 With regard to the Royal Supremacy, Aske stated that all men murmured at it and said it could not stand with God’s law and that it would result in England’s division from the unity of the Catholic Church.74 Aske answered the questions with regard to the bishops specified in the list of 106. He stated that the bishops were reputed to be of the new learning and maintainers of Luther and Tyndale’s opinions and were noted as such at the time of the Lincolnshire Rising in October. He also said that he did not know the difference between a heretic and a schismatic but could see that they varied from and preached against the old usages and ceremonies of the Church.75

  It is indisputable that the nature of these questions referred to the original Pilgrimage of Grace and not the post-pardon uprisings. It is thus evident that the so-called pardon counted for nothing and that doubters such as Bigod and Hallam had been correct in their assessment that the pardon was just a ruse. If the pardon was bogus, then so was the promise of a parliament in the North and the Crown’s word was meaningless – the regime had revealed its true colours. The king was affronted and vengeful; neither he nor his councillors were to be trusted.

  Whilst the interrogations in London were continuing, Norfolk was busy in the North visiting retribution on behalf of the Crown. Sixteen offenders were adjudged at Durham to be hanged in chains near their dwellings.76 Aske was examined yet again on 15 April,77 and William Colyns, the bailiff of Kendal, was accused by three individuals in depositions of being true to the rebellious commons.78 Examinations and confessions continued to ensue and one Ninian Staveley of Massam in Richmondshire confessed to consenting to gather a company to destroy the Duke of Norfolk so that their abbey might stand and Holy Church to be as it was in Henry VII’s days.79

  Percival Cresswell, servant to Lord Hussey, and Nicholas Tempest of Craven were examined in late April.80 Nicholas Tempest was accused of being an organiser of the first musters and principal architect in the later rebellion and to have procured the late abbot of Sawley to raise the king’s people. He and Sir Stephen Hamerton were accused of raising the commons in Lancashire, in Burnley and Whalley against the lords of Derby and Cumberland.81 It was also alleged that since the pardon, Tempest had maintained the abbot of Sawley in his possession against the king. Similarly, William Wood, the prior of Bridlington was named as a principal protagonist in the first insurrection and of being heavily involved in the second. He and Dr John Pickering had allegedly rejoiced at the insurrections and Dr Pickering had composed a rhyme of treasons.82

  Dr Pickering’s depositions included the names of the ‘learned men’ who attended Pontefract and he maintained that Aske had said that the Bishop of Rome was head of the Church of England and that he was prepared to die in the quarrel. He stated that apart from a friar of Knaresborough, he did not know any religious men involved in the rebellion and blamed Aske, Darcy and Constable. Pickering said that when he was at Pontefract, he did not think that the king could be head of the Church but had since changed his mind and confessed this on oath before Norfolk. He did, however, confess to composing the rhyme ‘O faithful people’.83

  Meanwhile, more ‘evidence’ was being gathered against Darcy. Mr Magnus, having returned from making an inventory of Darcy’s goods, informed Norfolk that he had discovered a book, which, though written ‘long ago’, showed that Darcy had long been dissatisfied with the governance of the king’s affairs.84 Soon after this discovery, one Marmaduke Waldby alleged that Constable, Aske and Darcy had wanted him to send a message to Flanders to Charles V’s sister, requesting money, arms and horsemen. Further, he alleged, a message was to be sent to the pope to have absolution for all offences. Waldby said he went to Hull, but whilst there, ‘Darcy sent word that he should tarry, and not go’.85

  Other depositions were obtained in late April prior to the prosecutions. Sir John Bulmer confessed that at the time of Bigod’s uprising, he sent Robert Hugill to the vicar of Kirkby to inquire if the commons would rise again. His ‘wife’, Margaret Cheny, was accused of having enticed Sir John to raise the commons again. Sir Francis Bigod confessed to having sent Hallam to Hull and to his own attempt to take Scarborough. He reiterated the defaults in the pardon and said that he had made an oration to the people declaring the faults in it. George Lumley admitted that he had met Bigod, heard his oration and raised the countryside with the aim of taking Scarborough Castle, entering Scarborough with 600–700 men. Sir Thomas Percy confessed to having received a letter from Bigod, which asked that he raise Northumberland and to having, since the pardon, received a supplication from the abbot of Sawley ‘concerning the saving of that house’.86

  Further allegations were made against Darcy. Sir Henry Saville reported him for having said, at the time of the Lincolnshire rebellion, ‘Ah! They are up in Lincolnshire. God speed them well! I would they had done thus three years past; for the world should have been better than it is’.87 James Cockerell, the quondam prior of Gisburn, confessed that he had read Bigod’s book against the title of Supreme Head but denied the allegation that he had commended it, whilst the prior of Malton, William Todd, admitted to having shown Bigod a prophecy that the king should be forced to flee the realm.88 Prior to the prosecutions of Aske, Darcy and the others accused, Norfolk remained busy in the North and reassured Cromwell that all in Yorkshire had been ‘hung in chains’. He denied displaying any compassion by allowing those hanged in Westmorland and Cumberland to be taken down and buried.89

  A few days before the trial, John Husee wrote to Lord Lisle in Calais of the forthcoming proceedings and of Darcy, Hussey and the other northern men in the Tower. He was of the opinion that there was only one outcome possible and wished that God would have mercy upon them and ‘send them grace to repent’.90 On 15 May 1537, twenty people were tried as ‘false traitors’ who had conspired to ‘deprive the king of his title of Supreme Head of the English Church’. These included Darcy, Aske, Constable, Bigod, Sir Thomas Percy, Sir John Bulmer, Lord Hussey of Sleaford and the friars discussed previously. They had been participants in a number of insurrections and had ‘traitorously assembled to levy war’ at Doncaster on 20 October 1536.91 Both Darcy and Hussey were tried by their peers and pleaded not guilty but were convicted by a unanimous verdict. The judgement was specified as being the standard in cases of high treason and their executions were to take place at Tyburn.92

  Aske wrote to the king on 16 May and asked for forgiveness and requested that Henry would make re
stitution for his debts.93 Constable wrote to his son, Sir Marmaduke, in an attempt to ask the queen to intercede with the king to secure his pardon and said that he would spend the rest of his life lamenting his offences. He stated that what they did was ‘for lak of furnyture and fear of owr lyves. Yet we dyd good service at Doncaster … Bygod was clerly stayd by me.’94 The plea for his life was futile. Constable, Bigod and Aske pleaded not guilty, whilst Percy, Sir John Bulmer, Margaret Cheny and Sir Stephen Hamerton pleaded guilty. Constable, Aske, Lumley and Bigod were found guilty and ordered to be executed at Tyburn along with John Bulmer, Hamerton, Nicholas Tempest and the four abbots, one canon and one priest. Margaret Cheny was to be drawn to Smithfield and burned.95

  About this time, Pole remarked that Henry was very insolent after his success in subduing the realm and that his cruelty increased with his success.96 Norfolk, however, wrote to Cromwell that the two lords (Darcy and Hussey) and Constable ‘will be little regretted’.97

  At the end of May, Darcy and Hussey were still in the Tower, awaiting their fate. On 24 June, the king wrote to Sir William Parr to advise that he was sending Constable and Aske ‘to be executed in Yorkshire where they committed their treasons’.98 Three days later, in a letter to Suffolk, Henry offered an insight into his mindset and was even more specific. He had determined to have Constable, who held Hull during the rebellion, hanged in chains there and also to have Robert Aske, ‘the grand worker of that insurrection, hanged at York where he was in his greatest and most frantic glory’.99 He also confirmed that he was sending Lord Hussey ‘to be beheaded in our city of Lincoln’.

  By 8 July, Cromwell could confirm all the punishments – the traitors had been executed, Lord Darcy at Tower Hill and Lord Hussey at Lincoln, Aske hanged upon York Castle, Sir Robert Constable hanged at Hull and the rest at Tyburn, ‘so that all the cankered hearts are weeded away’.100 Once again, the body politic imagery and preoccupation with social pathology is apparent.

  The post-pardon uprisings did indeed, in the king’s own words, constitute a ‘new tragedy’.101 The king’s retribution appeared to be complete and the realm was, on the face of it, tranquil and obedient. In all, 178 people had lost their lives as a result of the Lincolnshire Rising, the Pilgrimage of Grace and the ‘new tragedy’ of the aftermath. Of these, seventy-four were the victims of Norfolk’s declaration of martial law. These people were victims of what Elton has conceded was the king’s ‘ferocious personality’ and ‘self-righteous and vindictive temperament’.102

  It is clear, having looked at the evidence and sequence of events, that the December pardon was, in fact, meaningless and must be regarded as a ploy to delay the Pilgrims’ momentum and allow the regime to regroup and plan its strategy for retribution. That Darcy, Constable and Aske had played no part in the resumption of the revolts was obviously irrelevant as far as the Crown was concerned. Similarly, there was no proof that Sir Thomas Percy had instigated or agreed to the new uprisings. According to Hoyle, Percy ‘was clearly a marked man, if only because of his charisma and popularity with the commons’.103 It is also worth highlighting that legal process was not strictly adhered to. One only has to look at Norfolk’s admission of his defective commission in Durham to realise this. The king and the regime seized the opportunity which the Post-pardon Revolts presented and capitalised on it. Momentum for revenge was built up and the main movers in the Pilgrimage were going to pay, irrespective of their conduct in early 1537. Bigod and Lumley were undeniably guilty of raising a new insurrection, but the majority were not.

  The thirst for scapegoats and retribution did not end with the victims already discussed. The king’s desire for vengeance appeared to take on a life of its own. It was not enough that some individuals who had not violated the pardon had been punished. The desire for retribution even reached the king’s own servant, who was, demonstrably, not a Pilgrim – Lancaster Herald. The herald, named Thomas Myller, was dispatched on a mission to Aske and Darcy at Pontefract on 21 October 1536 and described Robert Aske as having a proud countenance and behaving like a tyrant. He also told how Aske had prevented him from reading his proclamation at the Market Cross in Pontefract. However, in the summer of 1538, a number of articles were drawn up against Thomas Myller, ‘otherwise called Lancaster Herald of Arms’. The herald was accused of having encouraged the rebels at Pontefract on 20 October by kneeling before Robert Aske. He had promised the rebels that the Lord Privy Seal would be delivered to them and, in addition, his lies had resulted in false and detestable rumours against Cromwell. He had shown the king’s counsels to the rebels and had told them that their other demands would be granted. Myller had discouraged the king’s army at Doncaster by exaggerating the numbers of rebels and stating that 10,000 of them had horses. In addition, it was alleged that he had referred to the Northern Rising as a marvel and implied that God had helped the rebels.104

  Myller then wrote to Cromwell, praising him for his charitable goodness and stating that the allegations made against him were false and made out of malice by Somerset Herald. Myller stated that he trusted that Cromwell would ‘take pains’ to ensure an indifferent trial in the matter.105 On 2 August 1538, Christopher Jenney wrote to Cromwell from York and advised that Lancaster Herald had been arraigned. He informed the Lord Privy Seal that the evidence against Lancaster was handled by Mr Clarencieux and his fellows honestly and not of malice, and, although Lancaster had alleged the contrary, he was unable to prove it. As a form of perverse retribution, Jenney appears to have relished informing Cromwell that he had arranged for the herald’s head to be ‘set up’ next to Robert Aske’s body.106

  On 6 August the Council of the North confirmed the assizes held at York against Lancaster Herald. On 20 August, the acting president of the Council of the North, the Bishop of Llandaff, wrote to Cromwell advising him of the outcome of the assizes held at York between 22 July and 17 August. He informed the Lord Privy Seal that eighteen people had been put to death, three on the charge of treason. One of these was the unfortunate Lancaster Herald.107 This outcome was reiterated in a letter to the king two days later from the Council of the North. The assizes at York Castle were attended by the justices along with Lords Scrope and Latimer, both of whom had been in attendance at the Pilgrims’ Council at York on 21 November.108

  It seems, then, that the Post-pardon Revolts can be attributed to the perception of the Pilgrims that King Henry had been duplicitous in granting the pardon and promising a parliament in the North. It also appears that this perception must have been latent at the time of Lancaster Herald’s promises in December. After all, it was just over a month before the simmering distrust manifested itself in the North, and, allowing for the Christmas holidays, this was insufficient time for the Crown to have ‘addressed’ any of the issues in the Pontefract Articles, nor to have made plans to convene a parliament in the North.

  The distrust which existed between the Pilgrim rank and file and the gentlemen in the movement was ably exploited by the king. Firstly, Ellerker and Bowes had attended Court and this must have caused suspicion among the Pilgrims – being, as they were, so far removed from the centre of the action. Secondly, Aske’s stay at Court for the festivities must have left a sour taste in the mouth of those who had lauded him as their great captain and hero. This was undoubtedly exacerbated by the length of his stay, and Marmaduke Constable had advised Aske that his return was to be welcomed, as there had been murmurings of suspicion and discontent.109

  When Bigod and Hallam expressed their misgivings about the king’s motives and actions, some Pilgrims were only too ready to concur and were roused into action and renewed revolts. The king was undoubtedly duplicitous: he had played the Pilgrims false to stop the momentum of the rising and seize an opportunity to regroup and plan a strategy for their ultimate defeat and his own retribution. This is precisely what happened. A parliament in the North was never convened. Indeed, Henry did not even visit the North until five years later. The Pilgrim leadership suffered retribution for their tem
erity and deep affront to this most vainglorious monarch’s honour.

  The victims were vanquished. What, then, of the victors, those who had remained loyal to the Crown? What was their reward for their compliance and service at such a pivotal stage in the reign? Those who had been steadfastly loyal to Henry throughout the crisis will be examined in due course, but before discussing these individuals and the issue of reward, attention must be given to the impact the events had upon the society, religiosity and power structures in the region.

  An examination of those individuals who became reconciled to the Crown, such as Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes, will be undertaken in an attempt to analyse how they managed successfully to rehabilitate themselves from Pilgrims in the original uprising, to loyal servants of the king in the aftermath. What was their motivation and that of others such as Sir Thomas Tempest, Sir Christopher Danby, Sir William Babthorpe and William Stapleton? How did these renegades manage their successful rehabilitation and how were they rewarded? What were the implications for their families? Why was such a disingenuous and vengeful monarch prepared to forgive and forget in these cases? And what were the benefits to the Crown? These issues will be explored in the following chapter.

  Notes

  1 L&P, Vol. XI: 1064, 1228.

  2 L&P, Vol. XI: 1235, 1236.

  3 TNA, SP1/112, ff.151–57 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1271); SP1/114, ff.18–19 (L&P, Vol. XII.I: 20).

  4 See Bush & Bownes, The Defeat of the Pilgrimage of Grace, pp.12 & 25. TNA, SP1/110, ff.100–14 (L&P, Vol. XI: 956, 957, 1064); SP1/111, f.59 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1045).

  5 L&P, Vol. XII.I: 201.

  6 TNA, SP1/112, f.197 (L&P, Vol. XI: 1306).