Chapter XVII: Hallam and Bigod (3)

This scheme had a particular fascination for Sir John. It had originally been devised by Sir Francis Bigod. The plan seems to have been that Richmondshire should rise as soon as Norfolk reached Doncaster. He would probably hurry forward with no troops but his escort, and might be attacked by the men of Cleveland as he went up from the plain of York into the Hambleton Hills about Byland[496]. Two men of Bilsdale came to Sir John to propose this plot. They brought a list of articles similar to those which were circulating in Richmond “for the swearing of all lords and gentlemen or their sons or else to strike off their heads.” Sir John was to take up his abode at Wilton Castle, when the commons of Guisborough would capture him by arrangement, and he would then go with them to seize the Duke. His wife knew of this plot and did not advocate lenient measures. “She said divers times that if the Duke’s head were off, Sir Ralph Evers’ and Sir Ralph Ellerker’s men might go where they would.”[497] Before any steps were taken to put this plot into practice, Sir William Bulmer visited Lastingham on his way to Doncaster, and convinced his brother that so long as they remained quiet they had nothing to fear. Sir John handed over to him his collection of bills, in order that they might be laid before the Duke. He reversed his tactics, suppressed the musters of the commons, and for a short time lived in comparative security[498].

Sir John Bulmer’s is an extreme case of the uneasiness which filled all the northern gentlemen, as they awaited the Duke of Norfolk. They felt that, like the knight of the legend, they had blown the horn without drawing the sword, and they were now unarmed at the mercy of an opponent whose next move was incalculable.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XVII

Note A. “Naught” in Henry VIII’s reign usually meant “evil,” as it
does here; similarly “naughty” has a much stronger meaning than at the
present day and is equivalent to “wicked,” not to “mischievous.”

Note B. This was not really inconsistent with the fact that Hallam was
to attempt to take Hull before Bigod arrived, for after securing the
town he intended to advance to meet Bigod at Beverley.

Note C. The original of Sir Francis Bigod’s letter to the bailiffs of
Scarborough has disappeared, but it is printed in Speed’s “Great
Britain,” book IX, chapter 21, as follows:

“To the Bailiffs and Commons of the Town of Scarborough.

Wellbeloved, we Francis Bigod, Knight, and John Hallam, Yeoman, in
the name of all the commons, command and charge you that ye assemble
yourselves together immediately upon receipt hereof, and so take
this oath which we here send unto you, and then after in all haste
possible to assist and aid these our brethren whom we send to you to
keep and make sure the Castle, Town and Port of Scarborough, that no
man enter into the same Castle that belongs unto Ralph Evers the
younger, Knight, nor any other which did not take full part with the
commons at our first and last assembling, in whose name, authority
or attorney soever they come, unless they have licence of all the
commons; in like manner ye shall truly keep all such ordnance and
ship[s] to the use of the commons, with which we charged you at our
last being here, and this not to fail, upon pain of your lives. Ye
shall refer credence unto these messengers, thus in haste: Fare you
well.

From Setterington this Monday Saint Maurus’ day[499]. Francis
Bigod Knight, in the name and by commandment of all the commons.”

Note D. This letter is dated 18 January, but endorsed 17 January, and
the latter appears to be the more probable date.

Note E. It was afterwards alleged that Aske had written to Bigod
promising that Hallam should be released, but no trace of this letter
remains[500]. The two letters upon which the prosecution based the
charge are both fully discussed in the text; they were (1) Sir Robert
Constable’s letter for the release of Bigod’s messengers, and (2)
Aske’s lost letter for the delay of Hallam’s execution. The
prosecution, which was not at all scrupulous in its methods, combined
these two letters and asserted that Aske had written either to request
or to promise that Hallam should be released, thus producing a charge
of treason out of two harmless documents.

Note F. Sir Ralph Ellerker reported that Boynton arrived on the
20th[501], but he signed a letter at Beverley on the 19th[502].

Note G. In the summary of the evidence and in Norfolk’s letter it is
said that “Hallam” accused the monks of Watton[503], but this is a
mistake; it was the prisoners who were examined at the same time as
Hallam who accused them. It is perhaps scarcely necessary to say that
the leader of a rebellion is often mentioned loosely as having done
actions for which his followers were really responsible. A well-known
name is attached by rumour to the deeds or words of obscure persons,
and instances have already been given in which Robert Aske was
supposed to have written letters or issued manifestoes with which, in
fact, he had nothing to do. Hallam’s is a similar case.

Note H. The supplication of the abbot and monks of Sawley is printed
among the Letters and Papers of October 1536, but this is evidently
too early, as its real date was either the end of December 1536 or the
beginning of January 1536–7. The reference in it to the fact that the
captain had laid down his office shows that it was written after the
second appointment at Doncaster and that it is, in fact, the same
document which was carried by Shuttleworth to Sir Thomas Percy. The
summary in the Letters and Papers is a good deal more definite than
the vague rambling clauses of the original.