Chapter XXI: The Council of the North (1)

There is documentary evidence that 185 persons were executed in the north for their share in the risings between October 1536 and March 1537, and that 31 were executed in the south, making a total of 216. In addition to this there is reason to believe that some executions took place of which no record remains, and there were a certain number of prisoners who died in prison without trial. The slaughter at the assault on Carlisle was considerable, but there is no means of discovering how many fell there, as the only number mentioned, 700, seems to be much too great. Making allowance for these omissions, however, the death-roll, although much longer than historians have acknowledged, is short considering the standard of the period. It is said that 100,000 peasants were slaughtered in Germany after the revolt of 1525. In comparison with this Henry’s modest total of little over 200 looks like humanity itself. If he won the victory by treachery, he is entitled to the praise of having used it with moderation, although this mercy was forced upon him by circumstances and was not much to his taste.

It may be doubted whether this punishment would have been sufficient to overpower the opposition to Henry’s policy, if the King had not found an effective ally in the plague. The fatal disease which had raged in the south during 1536 spread northward in the summer of 1537, and continued its ravages in the northern counties during the next four or five years. Men had no time to trouble about the wrongs of the Church with that terrible spectre at the door. According to the King’s servants it was the direct work of God on behalf of the King. At any rate it had a great deal to do with the peaceful close of Henry’s reign.

The north of England at the beginning of the sixteenth century was the poorest and most backward part of the kingdom, the part, therefore, which required most attention and care at the hands of a competent ruler. So far Henry had not done well by it. He found the north poor, and he robbed it of the only treasure it possessed in the wealth of the abbeys. He found it backward, and he nearly destroyed the only civilising influence at work there, the Church. He found that the people cherished, among many faults, a few rude virtues, truthfulness, personal honour, fidelity to family and friends. He made no serious effort to reform their faults, but he did his best to eradicate their virtues. By his system of justice oaths were made so common that it was impossible they should be respected. Treacherous and false witnesses were encouraged. The brother was forced to condemn the brother, and the wife was tempted to betray her husband. It was impossible that the gentlemen should preserve the same standard and feel the same self-respect after they had been half bribed, half frightened into taking part in the arrest and condemnation of their kinsmen and friends. In short, the north was impoverished and degraded by Norfolk and the King.

Nevertheless Henry VIII was a statesman, and he had long intended to reform the north. His experimental councils are one sign of this. His intrigues against the Percys are another. The Pilgrimage of Grace afforded a very suitable opportunity to put his ideas into practice. By its means he at last laid hands on the whole of the Percy inheritance, and destroyed a power which had menaced the throne for two hundred years. This dangerous power had been delegated to the Earls of Northumberland in the hope that it would enable them to control the Borders, but time had proved the folly of the measure. The Percys could plunge the kingdom in turmoil whenever they chose, but they could not maintain any appreciable amount of good government on the Borders. At length Henry VIII destroyed the family by violence and treachery. The means were bad, but the end was worth attaining, and the King was firmly determined that no act of his should confer similar power on another great family, which his son or grandson would in turn be obliged to destroy.

Henry had determined to try a new plan of government on the Borders. No satisfactory way to hold the mosstroopers in check had ever been devised. The councils were in a perpetual state of reorganisation. The wardens of the Marches were often in trouble for treason and at other times pursued spirited blood-feuds among themselves or with the Scots wardens. It was no wonder that the King took the wardenships into his own hands and secretly resolved that no nobleman should hold them again.

The East Marches were offered to the Earl of Westmorland, but he was allowed to refuse the office[1245], which would not have been the case if the King had really wanted him. Henry intended that the work should be done by knights and gentlemen appointed as his deputies and dependent on his own orders. They were to be assisted by the Council of the Marches. This body, which had been in existence for a long time, was composed of all the principal Border gentlemen, and the King decided to grant them pensions in consideration of the services which he hoped they would perform. The powers of the council were confined to the Borders; its members were officials such as Sir Thomas Clifford the captain of Berwick, Lionel Grey porter of Berwick, and Northumbrian gentlemen such as the Forsters, the Ogles, the Carrs and the Fenwicks. It was now proposed to include the headmen of the principal surnames of Tynedale and Reedsdale, the Charltons, Robsons, Dods, Halls and others. The presidents of the council were the deputy wardens, and its business was confined to Scots and English raids, outrages in Tynedale and Reedsdale, the safe-keeping of Border castles, and dealings with the English spies who infested the Lowlands of Scotland.

This council must not be confused with the Council of the North, as it was a totally distinct body. It was a makeshift means of dealing with the problem of the Borders. While England and Scotland were hostile, it was impossible to rule these districts justly and firmly. The reivers were not to blame for their situation. There is no real moral distinction between deliberately laying waste a fair country in time of war, and carrying off a neighbour’s cattle under cover of night, except that the first is wanton destruction and the second is sometimes a work of necessity. The mosstrooper naturally lost all respect for the law which praised and rewarded the first and hanged him for the second. The King did his best to deal fairly by the Borders. It was not his fault that all plans failed; or at least it was his fault only in so far as he stirred up tumult and encouraged the terrible Warden raids which so often set the Scots fields ablaze just before harvest time. He had let a lawless genie out of the pot, which he could by no means conjure back again.

In January 1536–7 the Earl of Northumberland was dying. He made no difficulty about the surrender of the wardenships of the East and Middle Marches into the King’s hands. The younger Percys were soon to be disposed of in the most definite way possible. There remained the West Marches, of which the Earl of Cumberland was the warden. On 24 January the King commanded the Earl to reconcile himself with Lord Dacre. Shortly afterwards the Privy Council desired the Earl to resign his office as warden, and announced at the same time that it was the King’s pleasure to advance him to the Order of the Garter[1246].

The King decided to appoint Sir William Evers to the East and Sir John Widdrington to the Middle Marches as his deputies, with Roger Fenwick as Keeper of Tynedale and George Fenwick Keeper of Reedsdale[1247].

It might have been expected that the King would consult the Duke of Norfolk before making these appointments, as he was just about to start for the north. But perhaps he wished to show Norfolk that he was not entirely trusted. At any rate Sir Anthony Browne set out secretly with the commissions for the new deputy wardens several days before Norfolk, and the Duke was much surprised to find himself following in the steps of a royal messenger about whom he knew nothing[1248]. Norfolk’s authority was limited also in another way. From the first it had been determined that he should be accompanied by a council of “personages of honour, worship and learning,” appointed by the Privy Council[1249]. Their commission set forth the powers of the council “whose advice the Duke shall in all things use, and for whose entertainment he shall have allowance, as in a book, wherein the Duke and every councillor is rated at a certain ordinary, is contained.” Some of these councillors accompanied the Duke to the north, the rest were gentlemen already resident there[1250]. On 14 January “the Earl of Westmorland and Bowes were sworn of the King’s Council in the North.”[1251] Sir Marmaduke Constable was vice-president, and William Babthorpe was a councillor[1252].

The Council of the North was thus constituted in 1537, but as yet it had no independent authority. The members did not even sign Norfolk’s despatches, and the Duke quoted their advice only when he was suggesting measures which would be disagreeable to the King[1253].

When Norfolk was at Doncaster on 2 February he received from the Privy Council an explanation of Browne’s errand. Besides the appointment of the new deputies[1254], he carried letters patent to all the headmen of Tynedale and Reedsdale granting them fees as the King’s servants[1255]. At first Norfolk was not opposed to the general outlines of the plan, but he strongly objected to some of the King’s pensioners. Edward and Cuthbert Charleton, Henry and Geoffrey Robson, Christopher and David Milburn, John Hall of Otterburn, and Sandy and Anthony Hall were all either thieves themselves or maintainers of thieves[1256]. They had been involved in the murder of two gentlemen. “Light persons will say that the King is obliged to hire the worst malefactors and overlook their offences.” Norfolk ventured to send after Sir Anthony Browne the advice that he should not deliver the patents to these men without further orders[1257].

The Duke was snubbed by the Privy Council for his pains. “The King marvelled he should be more earnest against retaining such as have been murderers and thieves than such as have been traitors. These men rather did good in the late trouble, though they did it for their own lucre, and if they can be now made good men the King’s money will be well spent.” To grant them fees was not the same thing as to grant them pardons; if they were murderers they could still be punished for that. Norfolk must write at once to Sir Anthony and tell him to carry out his original orders without modification[1258]. Henry always believed that the mosstroopers might be turned to good use if he could but manage them. On the approach of war with Scotland they became a valuable asset.

Sir Anthony Browne arrived at Berwick on Saturday 3 February. Besides the delivery of their commissions to the deputy-wardens, he was instructed to arrange a general pacification, to demand restitution from Tynedale and Reedsdale for the raids they had made in Northumberland during the rising, to appoint certain persons to advise the deputies, and to put Ford Castle into safe-keeping. In addition to these tasks, some of them not easy, he had still more delicate work to do. He must warn the Borderers against all breaches of the peace with Scotland; he must inform Sir Thomas Clifford that the Earl of Cumberland had been reconciled to Lord Dacre, and he must order Sir Thomas to “cast away his ancient grudges”; he must persuade the Northumbrian gentlemen “to live more in the heart of the Marches than they do now”; finally he was not to leave the north until the two younger Percys were safely in London by dint of force or strategy, and with them their henchman little John Heron of Chipchase[1259].

Sir Anthony Browne sent for the gentlemen of Northumberland to meet him at Berwick on Tuesday 6 February. There were some who failed to answer his summons—Cuthbert and Edward Charleton, Henry Robson, Christopher and David Milburn, and Sandy Hall—all names on Norfolk’s black list. The Bishop of Durham, who was making himself very useful, explained that they were noted freebooters who would not come in “for fear of their evil deeds;”[1260] the deputy wardens confirmed this opinion[1261]. The absentees would have received a pleasant surprise if they had plucked up heart to come; against all likelihood it was gold, not halters, that the King had sent them.

All the gentlemen who assembled at Berwick took the new oath to the King and received their patents. They took “not a little comfort” in being the King’s servants, and would “think long” until they had earned their pensions by some deed. The Greys were at feud with the Carrs, the Forsters and Ogles with the Halls; indeed it is safe to say that there was not a family in Northumberland without a blood enemy and a sworn ally. Sir Anthony Browne commanded them in the King’s name to forget their hatreds, and in the fullness of their new-found loyalty they all replied that the King should be obeyed in everything, “and each agreed to set his hand to an instrument.”

They were heartily agreed on one point. Tynedale and Reedsdale had spoiled the plains “so sore that many are weary of their lives”; the reivers must be forced to make restitution, or if that was impossible at least some revenge must be taken. Sir Anthony Browne promised redress and sent to the hill graynes to demand pledges for their good behaviour[1262]. Reedsdale made no difficulty, but sent in seven or eight of these hostages at once. There was likely to be more trouble over the Tynedale pledges, and the dalesmen had an excuse for their lawlessness ready. They said that they would never have “broken” if Sir Reynold Carnaby had not called upon them in the King’s name to rise against the rebels of Northumberland. Of course everyone in Northumberland swore that he had no thoughts against the King and took up arms only to protect his goods from the reivers[1263]. It is difficult to discover who was responsible for the raising of the two dales, the Percy or the Carnaby faction. The Carnabys laid the mustering of Tynedale to the charge of little John Heron, Sir Thomas Percy’s man, and supported their story by many circumstantial details[1264]. This still leaves Reedsdale unaccounted for, and the mosstroopers themselves said that they rose for Sir Reynold. In the King’s opinion, though they acted for their own gain, they did more good than harm. He must have meant by spoiling their neighbours, for they did nothing else. It may have been that when John Heron raised Tynedale, the Carnabys raised Reedsdale against him, and that both dales thought it more profitable to spoil the lowlands than to fight each other. It was in nobody’s interest to defend the falling house of Percy, and it may be suspected that a list of spoils nearly as long as those attributed to the Percys might have been made against the Carnaby faction.

The members of the Council of the Marches assembled at Berwick. They were Sir Thomas Clifford, Sir William Evers, Sir John Widdrington, Robert Collingwood, Lionel Grey, Cuthbert Radcliff and John Horsley. On 14 February they wrote to the King to inform him that it had been necessary to modify some of the orders brought by Sir Anthony Browne. First they had requested him not to deliver the King’s letters patent which granted the keeping of Reedsdale to George Fenwick, because a change at such an unsettled time would be sure to cause disorder, and the deputy warden of the Middle Marches, Sir John Widdrington, felt himself hampered in his duties if Reedsdale were not under his direct control.

Further, after much debate, they had determined to advise the King humbly against enlisting as pensioners in his service Cuthbert and Edward Charleton. These two men were leaders of the Tynedale thieves. They had resorted to Sir Thomas Percy during the insurrection. They had busily devoted themselves to stirring up the disorder so favourable to the practice of their calling. The feeling was general that in asking these reivers to assist their natural enemies the wardens, the King was obeying too implicitly the old saw about catching thieves. Moreover, the Charletons had not been loyal since the end of the rising. The greater number of the dalesmen had been ready to take the King’s oath, but the Charletons had refused to swear to be true to the King, unless they might make a special reservation in favour of Hexham Priory, which they had sworn to maintain against all the world, receiving 20 nobles a year from the canons in guerdon of their allegiance. This is some proof that the marchman’s respect for his oath was more than a chivalrous fiction of the Border minstrels.

The Charletons would not agree to send in pledges for restitution of the cattle and gear they had plundered. They had plenty of friends on the Marches, and being in league with the reivers of Liddesdale, Jedworth Forest, Harlaw Woods and Esk Water, they could defy the King’s officers with impunity. The Council of the Marches suggested that it would be better to catch and hang them than to enrich them with the nation’s gold. They were so formidable that it would take a force of 300 men to penetrate Tynedale and run them to earth.

Finally the King had commanded that John Heron of Chipchase should be arrested and sent up to London by water; but the Council of the Marches thought that his arrest would alarm the Reedsdale men, who were so far fairly quiet, and found it expedient merely to bind him over for 200 marks to appear before the King when summoned[1265].

Some of these arrangements did not please Henry. From a fragment of a despatch to the Council of the Marches, it appears that he marvelled at the demand for 300 soldiers, considering that Northumberland was quiet; he expected the Council to arrest and send up the Charletons without any such aid. He saw no reason against employing the Charletons in Norfolk’s objection that they were murderers, but it was a very different matter if they had refused to take his oath. The draft breaks off, and it is impossible to say what further orders were in the completed letter[1266].

On Monday 26 February the Duke of Norfolk dissolved Hexham Priory. All passed quietly. Edward and Cuthbert Charleton were safe in the fastnesses of North Tynedale, and did not consider that their oath bound them to attack the King’s Lieutenant when he had superior forces[1267].

On Tuesday 27 February Sir Anthony Browne received the last of the Reedsdale pledges, and the Tynedale men agreed to send in theirs on Monday 5 March. Well pleased at seeing the end of this difficult task, Sir Anthony left Berwick for Newcastle-upon-Tyne[1268]. At Morpeth he was met by 300 of the King’s subjects who had been “sore harried and spoiled” and begged for redress against the mosstroopers. Browne replied to their petition that he had taken order for the restitution of their lost goods, “whereat they are right joyous and glad.” Browne wrote that all went well, and that he expected to be at court again in a fortnight[1269]. If he had had more experience of the Borders, this very look of peace would have made him uneasy.

On Saturday 3 March Sir Anthony Browne was complacently sure that no part of the realm was in better stay than the Middle Marches. That very day Roger Fenwick, the Keeper of Tynedale, went to Bellingham to receive the pledges of his dale. At midnight he was set upon and murdered “for old grudges, by three naughty persons”; the murderers were John of Charleton, Rynny Charleton and John Dod[1270].

Norfolk was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne at the time. Feeling his position strengthened by the early failure of the King’s new policy, he drew up, with the assistance of his council, an alternative scheme for the government of the north. Henry was determined to be served no more on the Marches by noblemen, who were as lawless as the reivers and might use their isolation to become too powerful. Norfolk, on the other hand, was convinced that only a nobleman, wielding such powers as any king might fear to entrust to a subject, could keep order on the Marches[1271]. According to Norfolk’s scheme, this nobleman ought to be a member of the King’s Privy Council. He should be the King’s Lieutenant, president of the proposed Council of the North, and the ultimate authority in Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire. He was to have power to levy forces whenever he saw need. He must be chief warden of all the Marches, with deputies under him. He was to spend most of the year in the north and to sit two or three times at Newcastle-upon-Tyne to administer justice in Northumberland, in such cases as murders, felonies and debts, as the wardens had no authority to judge between Englishman and Englishman except in cases of March treason[1272], but only between Englishman and Scot.

In this proposal Norfolk showed his hand. During the following months there was a continuous subterranean struggle between the opposite schemes of Henry and Norfolk for the government of the north. Although little is to be found as yet about the Council of the North, there can be no doubt that that was the form of government which Henry had in his mind from the first. Against it Norfolk set up his scheme of a northern dictator, with himself holding the dictatorship. It was a tempting but a dangerous dream, and Norfolk dared not allow it to appear except by hints and glimpses such as this.

To strengthen the hands of the dictator of the north the Duke and his council made a number of suggestions less open to criticism than the main proposal:

(1) Reedsdale belonged to Lord Tailboys, but it “is wholly inhabited by thieves and has always been used as a lord marcher’s liberty and is not geldable.” Harbottle Castle, where the Keeper of Reedsdale ought to dwell, was so ruinous that it was fit neither for a dwelling-place nor a prison. The King ought either to compel Tailboys to repair Harbottle, or take the whole valley into his own hands, giving Tailboys compensation.

(2) Some fortress ought to be built in Tynedale, or else Simonburn Castle, belonging to Heron of Ford, must be put into repair and made over to the Keeper of Tynedale.

(3) “Some true and hardy gentleman” was needed as Keeper of Tynedale, which was to include Hexhamshire, Corbridge and the Barony of Langley. All the gentlemen of the South Tyne valley should be ordered to rise at his word in case of raiding or Scots invasions.

(4) The Earl of Northumberland’s castles and lands should be taken into the King’s hands, and the tenants instead of paying ingressum and such charges should be commanded to be ready with horse and harness at short notice.

(5) Lord Dacre must be ordered to keep his tenants, the prickers of Gillsland, in good rule, and they must be ready to attend the King’s officers at the Border meetings.

(6) The pensions granted to the gentlemen and headmen of Northumberland, designed to encourage them in the King’s service, were not likely to have that effect. The money would be better spent in rewarding good service already done, or in making the castles defensible.

(7) Finally the laws of the Marches ought to be fixed and written down, as at present they worked with all the uncertainty of traditional custom.

These suggestions, headed “A remembrance for order and good rule to be had and kept in the north parts,” were sent up to London[1273]. In his letter to the Privy Council dated 7 March Norfolk again urged that a nobleman should be appointed warden, at least of the West Marches. “Every man of wit” about him was agreed that no “mean person” could curb the Marches. This was the moral he drew from the murder of Roger Fenwick[1274].

The Privy Council answered this letter on 12 March. They pointed out that the King had offered the wardenship of the East and Middle Marches to two noblemen, who had both been reluctant to accept the office; instead of reluctant servants he had taken the best men who would serve him willingly. Norfolk had expressed approval of the scheme at first, only objecting to a few of the pensioners, whose unfitness the Privy Council now acknowledged. The King had been badly served on the West Marches because of the Clifford feud; it would become still more bitter if he appointed Lord Dacre to an office which the Earl of Cumberland had just given up. Was not the King’s authority enough to make the meanest man respected? “The King retaining all the gentlemen and headmen as he doth shall not be ill served; at least it shall not be ill to assay it.” They asked for the names of the “wise men” who had advised with Norfolk[1275].

The Privy Council remained blandly unconscious of Norfolk’s very broad hint that there was one nobleman who would not refuse to be warden of all the Marches. Their reply also shows why Norfolk resented so much the pensions which the King had granted. The recipients received the money direct from the King; a special messenger had brought them their patents, and it was made very plain that the Duke had nothing to do with the gift. This struck a blow at Norfolk’s power of buying adherents by a promise of court patronage, and when all the gentlemen and headmen were the King’s servants, it became much more difficult for anyone else to gather a strong band of retainers and allies.

When Norfolk’s proposal was laid before the King, he replied in no uncertain terms. On 17 March the Privy Council report to Norfolk the following speech which the King himself had deigned to make. Henry marvelled that Norfolk seemed so resolved that only noblemen should serve him on the Marches:

“When I would,” quoth his Highness, “have preferred to the wardenry of the East and Middle Marches my lord of Westmorland, like as he did utterly refuse it, so my lord of Norfolk noted him a man of such heat and hastiness of nature that he could not think him meet for it. When we would,” quoth his Grace, “have conferred it to my lord of Rutland, he refused it also; and my lord of Norfolk noted him a man of too much pusillanimity to have done us good service in it, if he would have embraced an overture in it. And we think,” quoth his Highness, “he would not advise us to continue in it my lord of Northumberland. Now if we shall prefer none of these three to that room, we would be glad,” quoth his Grace, “that my lord of Norfolk shall name a nobleman that he thinketh meet for that office. For gladly we would have such a one in store to appoint it unto, if we should hereafter alter our device, which we be not yet determined to do, nor shall apply to that sentence, till we have better experiment what should enforce us unto.”[1276]

Norfolk could not, of course, name the “nobleman that he thinketh meet for that office.” He had indicated the identity of that desirable personage as plainly as possible. The King’s snub revealed to him his mistake, and he remained silent for a considerable time, deep in his multifarious duties in the north[1277].

On 11 March Norfolk was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, making the final arrangements, as he thought, for bringing in the Border pledges[1278]. Sir Anthony Browne, who was about to ride south, thought that there would be little more trouble with Tynedale as certain men “of good estimation” had undertaken to send pledges for all the inhabitants except the murderers[1279]. Norfolk intended to return in Easter week to see that his orders had been executed and to “hear many poor men’s causes.”[1280]

All that is known of the terms of Norfolk’s treaty with the men of Tynedale may be gathered from the following letter, apparently addressed to the Council of the Marches by the heads of the four graynes[1281]:

“Worshipful master, this is our answers being the heads men of
Tynedale, it is so that we were called before the Duke of Norfolk’s
grace for such misorder as we have done in the late rebellion within
our sovereign lord’s realm, and there was commanded to make
restitution of the third part of all such goods as we had by our
oaths, and to find our felons given forth by the commissioners, and
that [_what_] we have not done we shall do. Also the said
commissioners hath given forth another decree, the which we may not
bide marvelling what is the cause thereof. This bill made the xvii day
of March. Also all conditions made before the Duke of Norfolk we will
fulfil and do to the uttermost. Also if they be any that be obstacle
to do the same, we bind us by this our writing to had [_hold_] him and
forcify him. By us—

Thomas Charlton
Gylbert Charlton
Gerret Charlton of Wark
Gerre Charlton of the Boure.
Umfray Mylborn
Rynyone Charlton
Henry Yarro
John Wilkinson
John Robson of the Pawston
Jaffray Robson
Arche Robson.
Henry Dode
Arche Dode”[1282]

There was no trouble, at present, between England and Scotland. The deputy wardens, who had nothing to do with internal justice, could send in satisfactory reports. The East Marches were quiet. On the Middle Marches Sir John Widdrington and the Scots officers arranged for redress between Liddesdale, Tynedale and Reedsdale according to the agreement made at the last Border meeting. The King of Scots had sent special orders that this should be observed on his side. Nevertheless there was a general feeling that war would follow on James’ return from France[1283].

At Easter Norfolk returned to Northumberland, as he had intended. He made a tour of inspection round the Border castles and held a meeting with the Scots warden of the Middle Marches. Norfolk was convinced by his demeanour that there was no immediate intention of war[1284].

The Duke was at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 5 April, where he was met by Sir John Widdrington, Sir William Evers, the Council of the Marches and most of the gentlemen. He was much displeased with the state of affairs. Tynedale and Reedsdale had made no restitution, and were not likely to do so unless they could be constrained by more effectual means than keeping their kinsmen in prison[1285]. Neither dale would begin to make restitution before the other. In spite of their thievings the borderers were miserably poor, and in some cases they were in fact unable to restore even a part of what they had stolen, for the cattle often went to supply a pressing lack of meat.

Some of the Reedsdale men had just raided Tynedale and harried one of the Milburns. This was no doubt a surprise expedition, for Tynedale could muster more spears than Reedsdale. The inhabitants of the two valleys might fairly be said to eke out a precarious existence by driving away each other’s cattle. A servant of the Carnabys had been attacked. The mosstroopers scorned the garrison left to protect him and burned his house to the ground. Sir John Widdrington had nowhere to bestow the nine Reedsdale pledges except in the decayed tower of Harbottle where “they cannot be kept strong, ne yet hath any victual for them.”

Sir William Evers had held two meetings with the Scots on the East Marches, but no meeting had been held by the deputies of either the Middle or the West Marches. If nothing more than this were done, Norfolk thought the disorders would increase. He reported the unsatisfactory state of affairs to the King on 7 April[1286]. He did not mention his earlier scheme in the letter, but he sent a verbal message that only a nobleman, armed with sufficient powers, could hope to keep order; as for the name of anyone fit for the post, “the King knows his nobles.”[1287]

Perhaps Norfolk was a little afraid of the effect which his sullen message might produce, for on 12 April he wrote a hedging letter to Cromwell. He thought that the Earl of Rutland would be the best warden of the East and Middle Marches. Rutland was allied to all the gentlemen of Northumberland, and also to the Earl of Westmorland. He was a man who would listen to counsel, and as war was threatened “it is perilous for a hasty, heady man to have the rule of such people, for the Scots can train men to ambushments as well as any man living.” This remark was aimed at Westmorland; but nevertheless the Duke considered him the best man for the wardenship, failing Rutland.

Norfolk had inquired of both my lord and my lady of Westmorland why the Earl had refused the office, and found that it was for the following reasons,—that the Earl’s servants had refused to serve the King during the Pilgrimage, and he was busy dismissing them by degrees; the Earl was not assured of the friendship of Robert Bowes, whose influence was so great among Westmorland’s kinsmen and allies that he feared it would outweigh his own; during the rebellion the Earl had defended Sir Reynold Carnaby, and thereby attracted to himself some of the hatred felt on all hands for Northumberland’s favourite. Norfolk thought that these reasons were good. As to Bowes he “is not only very much esteemed but is a wise, hardy man and dare well enterprise a great matter.” The King could not do better than attach him to his service by a valuable grant. “Though I dare not speak assuredly of a man so lately reconciled, yet if he may be assured he may be very useful.”

On the West Marches Norfolk put no faith in Sir Thomas Wharton, who was suggested for the post of deputy warden. No one could do such good service as Lord Dacre, but as he had been heavily fined so lately it would not look well to restore his office; people would say that the King was simply making everything he could out of him. The Earl of Cumberland was the only suitable person left; “but he must be brought to change his conditions and not be so greedy to get money of his tenants.” Norfolk declared that this was his final opinion, and begged the King to keep it secret[1288]. Needless to say, the King did not change his plans, nor was he deceived as to Norfolk’s real ambition.

About this time, the middle of April 1537, the rumours of an approaching war with Scotland became alarming. In order to understand their origin, it is necessary to trace the relations of England, France and Scotland during the last five months.

James V, King of Scotland, was at Tournelles near Paris in December 1536, preparing for his wedding with Francis I’s daughter Madeleine[1289]. The French were pleased with his gentleness and Faenza, the Papal Nuncio, with his devotion to the Holy See[1290]. To the English ambassadors he was cold and distant, and Wallop described him, not without malice, as a countrified youth. “His manner of using himself by that we do perceive is after the northern fashion, as the lords of those parts doth use themselves when they come first to court, now looking over one shoulder, now over the other, with a beck to one and a beck to another, and unto us nothing. He is a right proper man after the northern fashion. His being here shall do him much good, and to us little profit; for here he shall learn many things.”[1291] It seems to have been the fashion at the English court to talk of the Scots as if they were barbarians, but James probably had his own reasons for seeming shy to the English ambassadors.

He spent much of his time practising for the jousts which were to be held at his wedding[1292]. Francis showed him every courtesy and when he entered Paris in state on 31 December 1536 the Court of Parliament went before him clad in red cloaks, an honour not usually accorded to any but the King of France[1293]. The marriage took place on New Year’s Day, with great magnificence, and a proper display of sumptuous apparel, cloth of gold, and precious stones. After the wedding was a banquet, and after the banquet a mask and dancing. Next day there was jousting at Tournelles. The King of Scots was a true sportsman, and appeared at his wedding with a wound caused by “a great stroke with a spear upon the left side of his head ... being a sore blemish in his face all this triumphing time.”[1294]

On 19 January 1536–7 Faenza wrote that there was good hope of English affairs going well. The people stood firmly to their demands. The King had received ambassadors from them graciously, which showed that he must be aware of his own weakness. No doubt some report of Aske’s reception at court had reached France. The Nuncio suggested that Pole should be sent to England and that the Censures should be published at once[1295], but as soon as he received definite orders to publish them he hung back[1296]. This made little difference, however, as the time when they would have been useful had passed.

James V desired to return home through England, but he felt some difficulty about requesting Henry’s hospitality. The King of England had always opposed the French marriage, and James, to avoid his remonstrances, had not consulted him on the subject. Henry professed himself grieved and offended by this neglect[1297]. Nevertheless James did not wish to take the long voyage home with his young bride in the stormy season of the year, and as he was anxious to return to Scotland, he ventured to make his request through the French ambassador in England.

Henry was by no means inclined to do his nephew a favour. He considered it very strange that the King of Scots should not make the request in his own name. On 4 February the Privy Council asked Norfolk’s advice on the subject[1298]. The Duke’s position was a delicate one. James was possibly the future King of England. His friendship would in any case be very valuable to the dictator of the north. In spite of Henry’s obvious wishes Norfolk ventured to consult his own future interests, and replied that it would do no harm for James to pass through England, except on the score of expense. It was probably Scots pride which prevented him from writing to the King himself, and the peace and riches of England could cause nothing but wholesome humiliation to one with “a very enemy’s heart in his body.”[1299] But Henry determined to show his nephew no courtesy. “The King’s honour is not to receive the King of Scots into his realm unless he will come as his Grace’s vassal. For there came never King of Scots into England in peaceable manner but after that sort.” Henry enumerated all his grievances against James, and concluded with the argument that the country must appear peaceful and loyal to an enemy who was passing through it, and to secure this appearance it might be necessary to make concessions to the disaffected which would afterwards cause trouble. James’ overtures met with no response, and he was obliged to face the sea voyage[1300].

This affair did not improve the relations between the two countries. James became more gracious than ever to the Papal Nuncio at Paris. He was ready to further the Pope’s plan of reconciling Francis and Charles, and he cherished the splendid dream of all young kings, that he would go in person to fight against the infidels. The Scots disliked Henry’s policy and his person. They saw that his growing despotism was a menace to Scotland. David Beaton, the Abbot of Arbroath and Keeper of the Privy Seal, was willing, if the Pope desired it, to send the Censures secretly into England and cause them to be published suddenly when Henry VIII was in the north[1301]. It is impossible to say what the effect of this bold scheme would have been, but the Papal court had not sufficient energy to take it up, and Henry did not travel north after all at this time.

The Pope sent James V a consecrated cap and sword, as a special token of his favour, together with an exhortation against heresy[1302]. The King of Scots was pleased and stirred by the symbol. “With as many words as he can say in French, [he] again thanks his Holiness for the sword. I know it has touched his heart and tomorrow morning the ceremony [of presentation] shall be,” wrote the Papal Nuncio on 18 February[1303].

On 8 March the King and Queen of Scots took leave of Francis at Compiègne and went to Rouen, whence they were to sail[1304]. They waited there for nearly two months before they embarked. The young Queen was consumptive and could not well bear the voyage, which was therefore delayed until a more favourable time of year. James distrusted Henry’s intentions. The English ships held command of the sea and before now a King of Scotland had been captured on his voyage and carried prisoner to London. Rumour said that there were ten armed English ships on the coast and ten more in Flanders, and though James had fourteen ships of his own and eight lent for the voyage by Francis, he feared that Henry might begin hostilities by an attack on his fleet.

Henry, however, was not on such good terms with the Emperor as Francis imagined, and was not disposed for war. Though relations were strained between France and England, neither was prepared to fight[1305]. The war with the Emperor kept Francis busy, and Henry needed time to recover after the late crisis in England. James had no intention of attacking England without his father-in-law’s support. Nevertheless the news that he was bringing home his French bride raised a general expectation of war with Scotland.

At a friend’s house in West Malling, Kent, James Fredewell a priest, was playing at tables with Adam Lewes, the schoolmaster, one day in April 1537. The priest asked a man who was going to London to buy him a book. Lewes asked if he would buy the New Testament, but Fredewell replied he wished all the Testaments in English were burnt.

“What! will ye burn the Gospel of Christ and the word of God?” said the schoolmaster.

“Tush!” quoth the priest, “I will buy me a portresse to say my service on, as I was wont to do.”

They finished their game and went to John Doomright’s shop, where a pile of Acts of Parliament lay, concerning artillery, dress and unlawful games. Lewes remarked that he hoped they would be better enforced when the King had finished with the work in hand.

“Yea,” said Fredewell, “the King is like to have more to do yet.”

“Why so?” said the shop-keeper, “his Grace hath overcome his enemies of the north, for they hang at their own doors.”

“What then?” returned the priest, “there is another bird abreeding that came not forth yet which will come forth before midsummer, that the King had never such since he was King of England.”

Being asked what he meant, he told them that the Emperor had given the King Flanders, but if Henry took the Emperor’s part, both the King of France and the King of Scots would be on his neck, and Francis had made James Admiral of the sea. The schoolmaster declared that they could do little hurt; but if the King made war beyond the sea he would do well to cut off the priests’ heads first or they would betray him. Fredewell retorted that that was easier said than done. Lewes went away and another priest called Cuthbert came into the shop. He picked up an English Testament and said he was an evil man who translated it, or the Emperor would not have burnt him. The shop-keeper asked if no good men were ever put to death by the Bishop of Rome. “Yes,” said Fredewell, “there were some put to death within this two year that was as good livers and as faithful as be now alive.” Cuthbert said that the Bishop of Rome never put good men to death, and the two priests left the shop discussing whether it were lawful for priests to marry[1306]. Fredewell probably meant the Pilgrims when he spoke of the faithful who were put to death.

At Whitsuntide a citizen of Leicester, who had been making a circuit of pilgrimages in the north of England and Scotland, reported the rumours which he had heard by the way. In Edinburgh it was said that King James would make war on England for “the Seven Sheriffdoms” unless the King of England would give them to him freely, and that James had proclaimed himself Duke of York and Prince of Wales. There were said to be 15,000 Englishmen in Scotland, fugitives who had fled from Norfolk. Two of them were pointed out to the pilgrim in Edinburgh; one was a gentleman wearing a black velvet coat, and yet it was said that he had been but a poor man in England. The other, a priest, was now a canon in a house of religion near Holyrood. These Englishmen had promised to be in the van of an invasion of England, and to raise all Northumberland[1307].

Scots rhymes, prophecies and ballads aimed against Henry spread into England from time to time. An instance of this came to light at Royston, Hertford. The story is painful and rather perplexing. Robert Dalyvell of Royston went to Scotland “to learn the cunning in the craft of a saddler” about April 1535. He lived in Edinburgh with a saddler for about eight weeks and heard many Scots, both light persons and men of reputation, say that their king should be crowned King of England in London before midsummer three years later, i.e. 1538. They had read this in books of prophecy. Dalyvell returned to England and wandered about the north, working for a few weeks at York, Gateshead and Chester-le-Street; at the last place he heard several Scots say that their king was worthy to be king of England, and next in blood. He told them they were false traitors and their master rebuked them. Dalyvell went back to Edinburgh and “the Scots that railed before read the prophecies of Merlin in his hearing.” He returned home to Royston in 1537 and “on Tuesday night after Palm Sunday at midnight, his wife being asleep” an angel appeared to him, saying, “Arise, and show your prince that the Scots would never be true to him.” The next night he had the same vision, but he did not obey it.

On 11 June 1537 Dalyvell told a serving-man in the stable of the Greyhound, Royston, some of the prophecies which he had heard from the Scots, that if the King did not amend he should not live a month after the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist 1538, and that before that day a horse worth 10_s._ “shall be able to bear all the noble blood of England.”[1308] Whether the serving-man reported the matter, or whether Dalyvell himself confessed in a panic does not appear, but he was examined by seven magistrates and admitted the words[1309]. He was sent to London and made a fuller statement next day. It is difficult to see why so much importance was attached to the story of a poor man who seems to have been half-witted. Perhaps Cromwell hoped to get hold of some Scots spies by his means; and he endeavoured to make Dalyvell accuse priests. Though he was racked and cross-examined the prisoner had only one story to tell, and declared that of all the religious men he had known not one had spoken of prophecies even in confession[1310].

That Henry himself was anxious about James’ intentions is shown by the matters treated in the Privy Council on 3 April 1537. It was decided that Calais, Carlisle, and Berwick must be victualled and prepared for defence. The English navy must be in readiness for immediate service. The commission of the peace must be purged of all but “men of worship and wisdom meet for the same”; and letters must be sent to all justices to keep special watch for seditious persons; as a further precaution certain of the nobles would be ordered to live in their own counties for a time.

The Pope was trying to reconcile the Emperor and Francis in order that all three might attack England; the King must contrive to have one friend at least, and as alliances were generally concluded by a marriage, the King’s two daughters, though illegitimate, must have such provision made for them that their hands would be accepted by foreign princes. The Queen was pregnant, but still it was expedient that one of the King’s daughters should be declared legitimate “to take away the remainder hanging upon the King of Scots,” who might be tempted by the French to bring forward his claim[1311].

Meanwhile the Border was alive with rumours of war. No one had yet been appointed deputy warden of the West Marches, but Sir John Lowther, the Earl of Cumberland’s deputy captain at Carlisle, was doing the work. Hearing a rumour on Easter Eve [31 March 1537] that the Scots were mustering, Lowther sent Edward Story the warden-serjeant with a letter to Lord Maxwell the Scots warden, in order that Story might pick up news by the way. Story talked for a long time with Maxwell, who told him that general musters had been proclaimed in every borough town in Scotland. Each man was expected to appear with “a jack of plate, a steel bonnet and splints, and a spear six ells long, and all who can, a horse.” The King of Scots was expected at any time; he was waiting for a fair wind and he hoped “to escape the ships of the sea.” Maxwell declared that if the King had been at home during the rebellion he would “have kept his house in Carlisle before this.”

Lowther forwarded this news to the Earl of Cumberland on 6 April, and reminded him that Maxwell’s boast might well be true, for neither the city nor the castle was strong, and he lacked ordnance, powder and gunners[1312]. The Earl received the letter at Skipton, and sent on the warning to the King. He thought that a Scots general would attack either Berwick or Carlisle, and he dwelt upon the weakness of the latter[1313].

In February Henry had sent a request to the Regents of Scotland by Ralph Sadler that rebels flying from the Duke of Norfolk’s justice might be carefully returned to England. He received a flowery answer from the Scots Council, promising all that he asked[1314]; but though the Scots wardens were charged not to harbour English fugitives[1315], they were not expected to take their orders seriously, and such of the Pilgrims as escaped across the Border were safe.

On 7 April Norfolk at Newcastle-upon-Tyne wrote to inform the Regents that John Charleton, Rinian Charleton and John Dod, the slayers of Roger Fenwick, were being sheltered at Jedburgh Abbey. He demanded that they should be arrested and delivered to the English wardens[1316]. Henry Ray, Berwick Pursuivant, a very important personage on the Borders, carried the letter. He was given no credence, but he was instructed to enlarge upon the peace, contentment, prosperity and riches of England to the Regents and all other Scots. On his way he was to find out all he could as to whether the people wished for war, how the new taxes were taken, and why some of the lords had gone with a large company into Fife.