By COL. PHILIP SALTMARSHE.

THE following notes on the Aske family have been partly taken from General Harrison's history of Gilling West, but the writer has verified many of his statements by reference to the Public Records. The account of the Pilgrimage of Grace is compiled almost entirely from the State Papers, but Froude's "History of the Reign of Henry VIII." and Brennan's "House of Percy," have also been consulted.

"The Domesday Survey, in dealing with the land of the Earl of Richmond, states: 'In Hasse (Aske) for geld six carucates, and four ploughs may be there. Tor had one manor there now Wihomarc "homo comitis" has in the demesne one plough, and five villains and three bordars with two ploughs. The whole one leuga in length, and half in bredth' T.R.E. it was worth 20/-, now the same."

This Wihomarc, who also held two manors in Leyburn under the Earl and was a benefactor to St. Mary's Abbey, York, was the Seneschall or Steward of Alan Rufus, the first Earl of Richmond.

Roger, "son of Wihomarc," gave one carucate of land to the Priory of Marrick, a gift which was confirmed and increased by his son Conan, described as "Conan, son of Roger de Aske," by his grandson, "Roger, son of Conan" and his great-grandson, "Roger de Aske."

The latter's son, Sir Hugh de Aske, was returned in the inquisition of 13 E.1, known as Kirkby's Inquest, as holding five carucates and six bovates of land in Aske, and five carucates in Marrick under the Earl. This Hugh had two sons, Sir Roger, who was returned in the enquiry of 9 E.I., known as the "Nomina villarum," as Lord of Aske, Marrick, Dalton Travers, and Gatenby, and Conan, the ancestor of the Aughton branch, which we shall discuss hereafter.

Seventh in descent from Roger the eldest son, was another, Roger Aske, who died in his father's lifetime without male issue. In the partition of the property between his two daughters and co-heirs, Anne and Elizabeth, the lordship of Aske fell to the latter, who was seven years old at her grandfather's death in 4 H. VIII., and had livery of her lands in 18 H. VIII. She married Richard Bowes, of Streatham, Co. Durham, and thus brought the manor into his family. His descendant, Ralph Bowes, in 1611 sold it to Thomas Wharton, the purchase agreement being settled in Fines of 8 and 9 James I., and in the latter's p.m. inquisition, held at Richmond in 20 James I., it was found he died siezed of it. His descendant, Philip Duke of Wharton, sold the manor in 1727, to Sir Conyers D'Arcy, who, dying in 1758, bequeathed his estates to his nephew, the Earl of Holderness, who, in 1760, sold Aske to Laurence Dundas, Esq., the ancestor of the Marquis of Zetland, its present possessor.

We now revert to the younger branch, founded by Conan, the second son of Sir Hugh de Aske. Conan's son, Richard, who founded a chauntry in Howden Church in 1365, heads the 1585 visitation.

The family became possessed of Aughton in a some-what curious way. Richard's grandson, John de Aske, of Ousethorpe, had with other children, a daughter, Alicia, who married German Haye of Aughton, and it was agreed in their marriage settlement, dated 10 R.II., that, in the event of there being no issue to this marriage, Aughton should revert to John de Aske, father of the said Alicia and his heirs.

Alicia died childless, and thus the manor came to the Askes, who owned it for over two hundred years, until early in the 17th century John Aske sold it with his lands at Ryther and other places. His son, Richard Aske, was a barrister of the Middle Temple, but nothing is known of his descendants. Two heads of the house only received the honour of knighthood, and, with one exception, no member of the family seems to have risen to any particular distinction.

The exception was Robert Aske, the celebrated leader of the "Pilgrimage of Grace," who was the third son of Sir Robert Aske, of Aughton (the great-grand-son of the first owner of the manor), by his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of John Lord Clifford.

Adopting the legal profession, we gather from his own evidence, when under examination, that he was a barrister with considerable practice in London, and taking this into consideration, and also the fact that he had two grown-up nephews students at the Inner Temple, we may assume that he was not much under forty at the time of the Rebellion.

THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE.

The dissolution of the monasteries in the spring and summer of 1536, and the declaration of the illegitimacy of Princess Mary, had created a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction, especially in the north of England, where the attachment to the old religion was deep and strong.

Active rebellion broke out among the yeomen and peasants of Lincolnshire, at Louth, in that county on Sunday, October 1st, one of their first acts being to sieze Sir Robert Tyrwhit, the King's commissioner, for collecting the subsidy, Sir William Ascue, Thomas Portington of Sawcliffe, with other gentlemen, and to force them, under pain of death, to join the conspiracy. This they did most unwillingly, especially Tyrwhit, who was, or had been an esquier of the body to Henry VIII., and actually held a lease of the lands belonging to the suppressed priory of Stansfield.

In a letter of warning to them on October 9th, the Duke of Suffolk, who had been sent against the Lincolnshire rebels, addressed these gentlemen as leaders, but they never took prominent command, as some of their friends in Yorkshire did, and when the day of reckoning came, they were none of them brought to trial - a fact which speaks for itself. The real leader of the movement, at any rate at first, seems to have been one, Melton, a shoemaker at Louth. The principal complaints of the rebels were the suppression of the monasteries and the sale of their plate and ornaments, the evil councillors about the King,. and the report concerning new taxes; Tyrwhit and his friends being forced to send a petition on behalf of the Commons to the King, which, while expressing their loyalty to his person, set forth their grievances, and begged for their removal.

On October 7th, the rebels had assembled to the number of 20,000 or 30,000, 10,000 of whom are described as being well-equipped in and about Lincoln, but they received little or no co-operation from the county gentry they had brought with them, and were without any responsible leader.

On October 11th, the Earl of Shrewsbury sent Thomas Millar, Lancaster Herald, to read a proclamation from the King to the insurgents, telling them that they had been misled as to his intenti6ns, that he would consider their grievances, and grant a pardon to all except the actual ringleaders, if they would quietly disband.

This proclamation was read from the Market Cross at Lincoln, on October 11th, with the result that the Pilgrims who were beginning to get alarmed at the near approach of the Duke of Suffolk from the south and Lord Shrewsbury from the west, began to disperse, and the insurrection fizzled out in a few days. A proclamation of October 19th states that it was suppressed.

Though the King had information that the disaffection had spread to Yorkshire, he ordered his forces to be disbanded, a serious mistake on his part, as subsequent events will show.

In defiance of the promise of pardon, some seventy persons exclusive of the ringleaders, were brought to trial at Lincoln, and executed in March 1537, the sentence on the latter, eleven in number, including one parson, who were tried at Westminster, being a particularly brutal one, "that they be hanged, cut down alive, disembowelled, and their entrails burnt before their eyes."

We must now turn to the doings of Robert Aske, and the far more serious rising on the northern side of the Humber.

Aske, together with his brothers John, the head of the family, and Christopher, were spending the end of the long vacation with William Ellerker, who had married their sister Agnes, at Ellerker. Froude makes a mistake in stating that their host was Sir Ralph Ellerker. The latter was the head of the Risby family, whose relationship to the Ellerker branch cannot be exactly determined. Sir Ralph was, however, one of the party.

Three or four days after Michaelmas, i.e., on the 2nd or 3rd of October, Aske left Ellerker to return to his business in London. He crossed the Humber at Barton Ferry, and was proceeding to Sawcliffe, eight miles from Barton, the house of Thomas Portington, the husband of another of his sisters, Julian.

Two miles from Barton he was stopped by a small party of rebels under a Mr. Hudswell, and forced to swear allegiance to their cause.

Finding at Sawcliffe that his brother-in-law had been taken by the Commons, Aske proceeded to Wintringham to take boat there, but was forced against his will to return to Sawcliffe, where he tent the night. Early in the morning he was aroused from his bed by the rebels, taken to an assembly of conspirators three miles away, who had no leader, and appointed their captain.

His statement of his doings during the next few days is somewhat confused, and he seemed very undecided about his actions. On October 6th he passed over the Trent into Marshland, where he was well received as a Lincolnshire captain. He advised the Commons not to rise until the bells at Howden rang, and crossing the Ouse, he begged the Howdenshire men not to move until the bells in Marshland were heard.

His object, apparently, was to keep the Yorkshire men quiet until the King's answer to the Lincolnshire petition was received, and on October 7th he went to Lincoln to enquire about it. Hearing, however, that the Commons threatened his life for deserting them, he returned to Sawcliffe, and hid in a poor man's house.

On October 9th, the bells rung in Howdenshire, and the beacons on Yorkswold were lighted. This induced Aske to cross the Ouse at night, probably by Whitgift Ferry, for he repaired straight to Metham, whose owner was the most influential man in the district. Then he found the rebels threatening to burn his house because Sir Thomas Metham declined to join them. Aske succeeded in pacifying the insurgents on Thomas Metham, Sir Thomas's son and heir, consenting to take his father's place.

On the following day he appointed Metham, Thomas Saltmarshe, the latter's brother-in-law, Robert Aske Jun. his own nephew, William Monckton, Messrs. Franke and Cawood, captains of the Howdenshire and Marshland men, and these gentlemen issued a proclamation for "all men to assemble on the morrow at Skipwith moor, and appoint Messrs. Hussey, Gascoigne, Babthorpe and other gentlemen captains, and to administer an oath to all-' to be true to the King's issue and the Noble blood (Princess Mary being referred to), to preserve the Church from spoil, and be true to the Commonwealth.'"

This oath, the usual one administered in Yorkshire, Aske, as he subsequently confessed, devised himself.

In the proclamation Aske styles himself chief captain of Marshland, the Isle (of Axholme) and Howdenshire, the first intimation we have of his leadership of the insurgents in any district. How he obtained this position it is a little difficult to say. He was only the younger son of a squire of no particular influence, and as he had been a barrister in London for many years, could hardly have been well known in Yorkshire; on the other hand he was first cousin to Lord Clifford, and an exceedingly able man himself; moreover, he was probably the first gentleman, either in Marshland or Howdenshire, to identify himself with the movement. Be this as it may, after the incident at Metham, he seems to have put aside all scruples, and to have set to work with zeal and energy to organise his District.

In the meantime the Commons of Beverley and Holderness had not been quiet. On Sunday, October 8th, William Stapleton, younger brother of Christopher Stapleton of Wighill, and like Aske, a barrister in London, was forced against his will to take command in the E. Riding capital. On the following day the insurgents assembled on Westwood Green, made Brian Stapleton, William's nephew, and Richard Wharton, sub-captains, and despatched messengers to stir up the neighbouring villages. Communication was also opened with the Lincolnshire rebels, who sent messengers on October 11th to arrange co-operation, but the latter dispersed, as we have already shewn, a few days afterwards, so nothing came of it.

On Thursday, October 12th, a letter was received by Stapleton, from Aske, informing him of the rising in Howdenshire and Marshland, and desiring him to join forces with him at Weighton, so at this date the latter was acknowledged as chief captain, at any rate in the E. Riding.

Word was brought the same day that all Holderness was up, and had taken Sir Christopher Hildyard (of Winestead), Thomas Grimston (of Grimston), and Ralph Constable, brother of Sir John Constable, of Burton, but that Sir John himself, his son John, Sir William Constable (of Hatfield), young Sir Ralph Ellerker (of Risby), Edward Roos, and others had fled to Hull, and that Sir George Conyers (of Sockburn) and Sir Ralph Eure had taken refuge in Scarborough Castle. This evidence shows how unwilling the county gentry were at first to join in the movement.

On Friday, October 13th, James Constable, of Cliffe, and Ralph Legard, of Anlaby, came in, and the same day Stapleton, taking with him his nephew, Brian, and other gentlemen, but leaving the bulk of his forces at Beverley, went to Weighton. On the road they met Aske, Thomas Metham, Nicolas Rudston of Hayton, and his brother. They consulted together, and decided that while Aske marched his following by Skipton and Pocklington towards York, a deputation consisting of the two Stapletons, Rudston, and Metham, should endeavour to persuade Hull to join the movement. Sir John Constable and the Mayor refused to do so, and Stapleton returned to Beverley, sending Metham to Aske to report.

The Holderness Commons, under Sir Christopher Hildyard, had marched into Beverley in the meantime, and it was arranged that they, with the Beverley contingent, should besiege Hull, while Rudston, with the Yorkshire men, should join Aske.

On Monday, October 16th, Aske entered York without opposition, and finding Rudston's services were not required, he sent him back to Hull with four hundred or five hundred men, and the town was surrendered on October 20th, Sir John Constable and Sir Ralph Ellerker joining the insurgents, though it appears they never took the oath.

Either at York or on the road thither, dissention seems to have arisen between Aske and some of his lieutenants, who were evidently jealous of his position, for Stapleton, in his confession, states that Aske told him, "he had only three hundred men at the winning of Pomfret, for Metham and Saltmarshe met him at York, disdaining that he should be above them." This is easily understood. Both these gentlemen were eldest sons, moreover, Metham's father was the most influential landowner in Howdenshire. They naturally felt sore at having to serve under the youngest son of a neighbour. Of course, at this time, none of the big families in the north had yet joined the confederacy.

In the meantime the West Riding was active, and on October 13th, as appears by his letter to Henry VIII., Lord Darcy, general warden of the marches, was forced to retire to Pomfret Castle, where he was joined by the Archbishop of York. With him, also, were his two sons, Sir Arthur and Sir George Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, of Flamboro, William Babthorpe, of Osgodby, and one or two other gentlemen.

On Thursday, October 19th, Aske had an interview with Darcy, and tried to persuade him to give up the castle and join the insurgents. Darcy asked for a truce till Saturday, for consideration, but Aske, knowing that the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Shrewsbury were approaching, said he must make up his mind by 8 a.m. the next morning, or the castle would be assaulted. The following day, October 20th, the castle was surrendered, Darcy and those with him having to take the Pilgrim's oath.

His success in capturing Pomfret and persuading Darcy to join the movement, strengthened Aske's position enormously, and silenced those who had previously been jealous of his authority. Levies from the north hastened to join him.

The Durham men, 10,000 in number, marched to Pomfret under the banner of St. Cuthbert, led by Lords Latimer and Lumley, Sir Thomas Hilton and George Bowes. Lord Neville brought his father's tenants from Raby. Dalesmen from the valleys of the Swale, Wensley, and Ure, from Mashamshire and Bedale, arrived under the leadership of Lord Scrope, Sir Christopher Danby, and Sir William Mallory. Sir Robert Bowes, Roger Lassells, and Roland Place appeared at the head of the Richmondshire yeomen, and Sir William Bulmer, of those from Guisbro and Cleveland.

Farmers and peasants of the Ainsty came in under Sir Oswold Willesthorpe and William Acclom, of Moreby, while those of Buckrose and Allertonshire were commanded by Sir Francis Bygod and Sir James Strangwayes respectively.

The Howdenshire contingent, now willing enough to serve under Aske, was in charge of Thomas Metham, Thomas Saltmarshe, and Sir Ralph Ellerker; Sir Nicolas Tempest brought in West Riding insurgents from Agbrigg and Morley, Sir Stephen Hammerton those from Staincliff.

Holderness men, under the command of Sir Robert Constable, who joined the movement after the surrender of Pomfret, Sir John Constable of Burton, and Sir Christopher Hildyard; the burghers of Beverley, under William and Brian Stapleton, and the Yorkswold men under Nicolas Rudston, all fresh from their success at Hull, hastened to Pomfret.

Sir Ralph Eure still held Scarborough for the King, but hardly another family of note in the county that did not send a representative. The Earl of Northumberland was lying sick at Wressel, and declined to take up arms against his king, but his second brother, Sir Thomas Percy, joined the conspiracy.

When so many of higher social position and far greater influence than himself in the north of England arrived at Pomfret, Aske wished to resign the chief command, but as it was felt that the appointment of any of the great nobles to succeed him would cause jealousy among the others, he was asked to retain it.

On October 21st, Thomas Millar, Lancaster Herald, who had been so powerful a factor in pacifying the Lincolnshire men, was sent, according to the King's orders, by Lord Shrewsbury from Scroby in Nottinghamshire, to read the Royal proclamation to the insurgents at Pomfret. He arrived there the next day, but Aske, fearing either that the herald. might be equally successful in Yorkshire or, in the contrary event, as he afterwards stated to the King, his life might be in danger, refused to allow him to address the people. He received the herald himself, and read his proclamation to the Archbishop, Lord Darcy, Sir Robert Constable and others who were with him. The herald then asked for his demands in writing, upon which Aske gave him the oath administered to his followers, which has been already described, and which he said contained them, and had him escorted out of the camp.

On October 24th, Aske had under his command over 30,OOO men, a large proportion of whom were mounted. These were well organised and mostly well equipped, for in those days, especially in the north, where all were liable to serve against the Scotch at any time, men kept their arms in their houses ; moreover, they had the magazines at York, Hull, and Durham to draw on for munitions of war.

On the above date, after a council of war, Aske marched towards Doncaster, his vanguard with St. Cuthbert's banner being composed of the Durham and Cleveland levies under Lords Neville, Latimer, Lumley, and Sir Thomas Percy, the centre of those from the East and West Ridings under Aske himself, Lord Darcy, and Sir Robert Constable, and the rear guard of those from Richmondshire and the North Riding under Lord Scrope, Sir Christopher Danby, and Sir William Mallory. This according to Aske's statement, but William Stapleton gives a somewhat different disposition, stating that the East Riding men under Percy were in the vanguard.

The Duke of Norfolk, the King's Commissioner in the north, with some 8ooo men, mostly from Norfolk and Suffolk, approached Doncaster on the 25th, and a skirmish took place that day between his advance guard and some of Aske's cavalry, in which the Duke's horsemen were easily defeated and driven back on the main body.

Norfolk, who had now learnt that Aske's forces outnumbered his by four to one, and that, moreover, they were quite as effectively armed and drilled, came to the conclusion that the only plan of dealing with the rising was by negotiation; he had, moreover, the King's authority for persuing this course with the dishonourable proviso that he was "to esteem no promise made to the rebels." He therefore sent his herald to request a pourparler. Darcy and the other nobles objected to hear him, but Aske, who was all for peace, finally persuaded them to accede to the Duke's request.

A meeting was held at Doncaster Bridge on Thursday, October 26th, between Norfolk's commissioners and those of Aske, the latter consisting of Lords Latimer, Lumley, and Darcy, Sir Ralph Ellerker, and one or two others. Aske himself was not present, he remained with his troops, who were under arms the; whole day.

At the conference it was agreed that both sides should disband their forces, and that Sir Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes should accompany Norfolk to London and lay the grievances of the "Pilgrims" before the King, and that in the meantime a general pardon should be in force.

The following day, October 27th, the men returned to their homes, but were ordered to be ready to re-assemble at a short notice. It was a truce, not a peace.

Had Aske, instead of coming to terms with Norfolk, attacked the Royal forces and defeated them, as indeed, considering the numbers on each side, he must have done, the whole course of history might have been changed. Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire, and the south of Yorkshire would have joined him at once. Lincolnshire would probably have risen again.

He might have marched on London with a great army increasing in size as it went, and strong enough to break down all, opposition to its progress. The monasteries might have been restored, and the Pope's authority re-established.

In acting as they did, the rebel leaders were probably influenced by the following considerations

1. Many had been forced into the rebellion against their wills, and were only too anxious to see it peace-fully terminated.

2. The wars of the Roses had not been forgotten by the nobility and gentry of England; another such struggle was the last thing they desired.

3. They felt no animosity against Henry personally and there was no one else to place on the throne even had they wished to depose him.

Though his followers were temporarily disbanded,

Aske still remained in command, and in a letter to Sir Francis Brian on November 15th; signed himself as "Captain by consent of the Barons and Commonalty the North."

We must pass somewhat rapidly over the negotiations which took place after the Doncaster conference. Both sides thoroughly distrusted each other. Suffolk was reported to be advancing against Hull, and Sir Robert Constable was appointed by Aske to hold the town for the rebels.

On November 2nd the King sent an argumentative answer to the insurgents' petition, in which he practically yielded nothing. The same day he proclaimed a pardon to all living north of Doncaster, providing Aske and nine of the humbler ringleaders were delivered up. These terms were naturally refused. About November 19th Ellerker and Bowes arrived back with a second answer from Henry to the effect that the Duke of Norfolk would be sent to Doncaster, and would, on behalf of the King, give the Northerners all reasonable satisfaction, moreover, that a safe conduct would be granted to the Lords, and gentry to the number of three hundred to meet him.

On November 21st a council was summoned by Aske to consider this reply, at which it was agreed to call all the northern gentry to Pomfret on December 2nd.

The King's secret instructions to Norfolk in the meantime, as appears by his letters to that nobleman, were that he might issue a general pardon to all, including Aske and Darcy, if the two latter would come in, i.e., desert their comrades, but that a few including Sir Robert Constable, who had rendered himself especially obnoxious to the King by his actions at Hull, should be reserved for punishment.

At the Pomfret meeting on December 2nd, it was agreed to send three hundred gentlemen to Doncaster on December 5th, to meet an equal number of the Duke's followers. At the same time the demands of the rebels were clearly drawn up. The principal of these were : The heresies of Luther, Melangton and others reformers to be destroyed; the see of Rome to be supreme in religious matters; the Princess Mary to be made legitimate; the suppressed monasteries to be restored; Cromwell and other evil councillors to have condign punishment; liberties of the Church to have their old customs; free pardon to all concerned.

Aske in his evidence, gives the names of some of those who took part in the Doncaster conference on December 5th. These were Lords Neville, Scrope, Latimer, Conyers, Lumley and Darcy; Sir Robert Constable, Sir James Strangwayes, Sir Christopher Danby, Sir Thomas Hilton, Sir Christopher Hildyard, Sir Robert Neville, Sir Oswold Willesthorpe, Sir Edward Gower, Sir George Darcy, Sir William and Sir Nicolas Fairfax, Sir' William Mallory, Sir Ralph Bulmer, Sir William Bulmer, Sir Stephen Hammerton, Sir John Dawnay, Sir George Lawson, Sir Richard Tempest, Sir Thomas Johnson, Sir Henry Gascoigne, "and other knights whom he did not remember," besides esquiers of Yorkshire, John Norton, Richard

Norton, Roger Lassells, Roland Place, Thomas Metham, Thomas Saltmarshe, Richard Lassells, Ralph Bulmer, Robert and Richard Bowes, and Messrs. Fulthorpe,

Mauleverer, Barton of Whenby, Redman, Hammerton, Rither, Palmes, Aclom, Rudston, Plumpton, Middleton, Allerton and others.

The State papers give us less information than might be expected as to what took place at the meeting, but Norfolk evidently promised the rebel leaders to lay all their demands before the King, and succeeded in persuading them that generally speaking they would be satisfied, at the same time a general pardon under the great seal was produced.

Then, for the second time, under much the same conditions as on October 27th, the northern gentry returned to their homes.

Henry was infuriated when he received the Duke's report of the meeting, and wrote an indignant letter to him on December 8th, making light of the insurrection, and blaming him for not being able to suppress it. At the same time he assured Norfolk that nothing would induce him to restore the religious houses.

A week later, however, the King determined to pit his wits against the rebel leaders, and on December 15th wrote Aske a conciliatory letter, asking him to come to London, and promising him a good reception, and safe conduct to January 5th.

Aske consented to go, having previously arranged with Darcy that he should lay a post along the road, and that in the event of his being detained, Darcy should raise the north again.

What exactly passed between the King and Aske we do not know, but Henry evidently succeeded in hoodwinking the insurgent leader, astute lawyer though he was, for on his return to Yorkshire on January 7th, 1537, he wrote to Darcy "that the King had been very gracious, had confirmed the general pardon, and promised to hold a parliament at York to discuss all reasonable petitions.

This seemed to satisfy Aske, for on his return he undoubtedly did his best to pacify the county, and in some cases appears to have exaggerated even the promises of the King, and led the rebels to believe that the whole of their demands would be granted. The result was that suspicion was allayed, and military preparations relaxed.

The King, who had been very sore at having to give in to the rebels, took advantage of this to gradually strengthen his garrisons in the north, and to make every preparation to quell the rebellion should it break out afresh.

Norfolk, by his command also, announced that before anyone received the pardon he must swear to respect all statutes then in existence. This to the "Pilgrims" was tantamount to giving up their case, and though most of the noblemen and gentlemen of the north would apparently have acquiesced, a few felt that they had been tricked, and that Aske had betrayed their cause.

Among the latter was Sir Francis Bygod of Settrington, who commanded the ]3uckrose levies in the first insurrection. On Wednesday, January 10th, Bygod met at Watton, John Hallom, a yeoman of that place, who a day before had been attempting to stir up disaffection at Beverley. It was agreed between them that Hallom and his friends should attempt to win over Hull, while Bygod, with his following, should seize Scarbro, and that then they should make a joint advance on Beverley.

On January 16th, Hallom entered Hull quietly, with but twenty men, who came in by twos and threes to allay suspicion, his intention being to raise the town in the evening. The Mayor had, however, been warned, and Hallom was captured on arrival by Mr. Eland, an alderman of the city. His followers mostly escaped.

The same day Bygod attempted a muster at Settrington. He collected about one hundred and forty men, but George Lumley, son and heir of Lord Lumley, was seemingly the only gentleman among them. Him Bygod persuaded to make an attempt on Scarbro with a company of about fifty men, which he placed under his command. A few joined on the way, and Lumley entered the town with over one hundred rebels. He made no effort to capture the castle, though Sir Ralph Eure, the governor, was absent at the time, but leaving his company under the command of John Wyville, he departed home, and the next day wrote and advised the latter to disband his force, which he did.

Bygod in the meantime had succeeded in increasing his army to some four hundred men, though it does not appear that any gentlemen joined him. Sir Robert Constable positively refused to do so, and both Aske and Darcy threw cold water on the enterprise.

On January 18th Sir Francis entered Beverley, intending to march on Hull and rescue Hallom, but on the morning of the 19th before daylight, he was attacked by Sir Ralph Ellerker, was utterly defeated, and left sixty-two prisoners in the hands of the enemy.

Brennan and other historians have represented Bygod's rebellion as being crushed by the King's troops. It was not so. The rising was put down by the very gentlemen who had taken part in the Pilgrimage of Grace. On January 24th Henry himself wrote to both Darcy and Aske, and on the 25th to Sir Ralph Ellerker, acknowledging their services, and yet two out of three of these gentlemen were subsequently indicted for aiding and abetting Bygod.

To explain the action of the Yorkshire gentry on this occasion, it is necessary to fully appreciate the character of the rising.

The suppression of the monasteries, putting aside the religious question, was a great loss to the poorer classes, who were helped by them to a considerable extent in times of trouble, and it was the poorer classes, the small tenant farmers, labourers, and shopkeepers who initiated the rising.

Unlike Wat Tyler's rebellion in opposition to the Poll Tax, where the leadership of the gentry was never sought, the Pilgrims of Grace insisted on being commanded by the knights and squires in their districts. The latter for the most part joined the movement most unwillingly. The suppression of the monasteries did not practically hurt them, and some like Sir Robert Tyrwhit, had already received or hoped to receive a lease of monastic lands. One result of the rising too, was to unsettle their .tenants who, in some cases, declined to pay their rents. Norfolk writing to Cromwell on February 4th, states: "Never were people set against the nobles as they be in these parts."

It was felt, too, that Bygod's futile attempts easily suppressed though they were, would afford the King an excuse for breaking his promises, and cancelling the pardon, forebodings which were soon realised.

Henry now considered that it was safe to show the iron hand. The general pardon was cancelled, and the King wrote to Norfolk on February 22nd as follows:

"You must cause such dreadful execution upon a good number of the rebels, hanging them on trees, quartering them, and setting their heads and quarters in every town, as shall be a fearful warning."

Well did the Duke carry out his sovereign's order. There was not a town, there was not even a village north of the Humber where, during the spring of 1537, men and women could not be seen dangling from gibbet or tree.

Bigod was captured in Cumberland on February 10th, and both he and George Lumley were sent to London under escort, but the other nobles and gentlemen against whom it was secretly determined to proceed, were simply summoned to London independently, without intimation that they would be tried, and Norfolk, writing to Cromwell on March 31st, says: "He thinks Sir Stephen Hammerton and Sir Nicolas Tempest will come up, as they are in no fear."

During April, Lords Darcy and Hussey, Aske, and some twelve other gentlemen were lodged in the Tower, where they were subjected to a rigid examination, partly in the hopes of inducing them to give evidence against each other, and partly with a view to finding out the causes of the rebellion.

Ultimately it was decided to bring the following to trial, Lords Darcy and Hussey, Sir Robert Constable, of Flambro, Sir Thomas Percy of Seamer, Sir John Bulmer, of Wilton, and his son Ralph, Margaret Cheyne, who passed as Lady Bulmer, Sir Stephen Hammerton, George Lumley, son and heir of Lord Lumley, Robert Aske, and Sir Nicolas Tempest, of Bracewell, together with several ecclesiastics.

It seems to have been quite unnecessary, even according to the barbarous policy of the day, to proceed against any of these gentlemen, with the exception of Bigod and Lumley. They had none of them offended since the King's pardon was granted, or countenanced in any way the actions of Bigod and his accomplices, quite the reverse, in fact. The gentry of the north were now well disposed to the King, and the wholesale execution among the poorer classes, the real promoters of the rebellion, had struck terror into the hearts of the commons.

The prosecution of Aske and his colleagues was an act of vengeance on the part of Henry, who had never forgiven the rebuff he had suffered at their hands the preceding October.

As the King's pardon for all offences prior to December 10th, if subsequent conduct was satisfactory, was admitted, it was necessary, in order to make some show of justice, to prove that the prisoners had been guilty of treason since that date, and great efforts were made to do so. The evidence, however, was of the flimsiest description. All the King's attorney could allege was that though Aske and his friends had not assisted Bigod's rising, they had not taken sufficiently active steps to quell it. That they had received traitorous letters from him and Hallom, which they had not forwarded at once to London, and that they in their letters, had begged the commons to keep quiet until Norfolk's coming, from which it was argued that after Norfolk arrived they would hold them in no longer.

On May 9th Norfolk summoned a number of the northern knights and gentlemen to York in order to empanel a grand jury to consider the charges against the above-mentioned prisoners. The following were selected to serve :-Sir Christopher Danby, Sir John Daunay, Sir Edward Gower, Sir Thomas Johnson, Sir Roger Cholmeley, Sir Thomas Metham, Sir Nicolas Fairfax, Sir Robert Neville, Sir Oswald Willesthorpe, Sir William Knolles, Henry Rither, John Aske, George Thwenge, Christopher Fenton, Ralph Hungate, Edward Ross, John Peke, Marmaduke Thwaites, Edward Saltmarshe, Henry Ardyngton, and Robert Conyers. Most of the above, or their eldest sons, had served in the field with Aske. John Aske was his eldest brother, Sir Edward Gower and Sir Roger Cholmeley were sons-in-law of Sir Robert Constable. Sir Christopher Danby and Sir Thomas Metham cousins of Lord Darcy, but Nolfolk was able to write to the King that, in spite of their relationships, the grand jury would bring in a verdict which would satisfy him, i.e., a true bill.

The official charges on which the prisoners were tried, briefly stated were

"That at Doncaster and other places they were in arms against the King, and that, though the latter of his gracious mercy granted a pardon for all offences committed prior to December 10th, the said Sir Francis Bigod and George Lumley did again levy war against the King in January at Settrington, Beverley, Scarbro, and , and that the other prisoners aided and abetted them."

The grand jury did as they were expected to do, and brought in true bills against all the prisoners Lord Darcy and Hussey were tried by their peers on May 15th, the remaining prisoners by a jury of Yorkshire gentlemen at Westminster the following day. With the exception of Ralph Bulmer, they were found guilty, and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn. Margaret Cheyne to be burned alive at Smithfield.

After conviction Aske sent a letter to Cromwell which speaks well for his character. In it he begs that his debts, a list of which he enclosed, might be paid out of his property, that the King would be gracious to his elder brother John, who had been guilty of no offence, and ends up with the pathetic appeal "that he may be full dead before he be dismembered."

The sentences, were afterwards somewhat varied, and ultimately Bulmer, Tempest and Hammerton were executed at Tyburn, and Margaret Cheyne burned at Smithfield according to the verdict on May 25th. Lumley, Percy, and Bigod were also executed at Tyburn on June 2nd. Lord Darcy was beheaded on Tower Hill, on June 30th, and Lord Hussey at Lincoln about the same date. Aske was hanged in chains at Clifford's Tower, York Castle, and Sir Robert Constable at Hull, in July.

So ended the northern rebellion of 1536, and though in dealing with it Henry VIII. showed himself a past master of diplomacy, he proved at the same time that he was singularly devoid of all honour and chivalry.

Home