by Gwyn, Peter
There is no little trouble nor business between the earl of Cumberland [Clifford] and the said Lord Dacre, not only to the inquieting of their servants, friends, and lovers in Cumberland and Westmorland, but also the countries there, by the occasion of the same, be the more further from good rule. Wherefore, your said Grace should do a good and blessed deed to set some good order between them.18
The evidence is that Wolsey was no more successful than Northumberland or Richmond’s Council had been in resolving the conflict, though perhaps it would be fairer to say that if he was successful, conflict soon broke out again after his fall, even though in August 1529 Magnus’s advice was taken and the captaincy of Carlisle was granted to Dacre.19 In 1534 Dacre was accused of high treason for collusion with the Scots. Though acquitted, he was fined £10,000 and removed from the wardenship.20 There is little doubt that the Clifford influence was behind these charges and it was Clifford who succeeded him. But Clifford’s second term as warden of the West March was hardly more successful than his first. It is true that he retained the post until his death in 1542, but in 1537 the Crown decided that his rule was so inadequate that they appointed a deputy, Sir Thomas Wharton, giving him such extensive powers that in effect it was he who performed the warden’s duties.21 As a postscript it is worth quoting the duke of Norfolk’s comment in 1537, a time when Clifford’s tenure was under review – ‘no man can serve his highness better than Lord Dacre there’22 – though he recognized that he was debarred from office by virtue of the charge of treason made against him in 1534. By 1549 this was deemed to be no longer a bar. Dacre once again became warden of the West March and remained so until his death in 1562.
It looks very much from all this as if the natural leaders in the West March were members of the Dacre family, and it was to these natural leaders, other things being equal, that the Crown looked to exercise its authority there. The problem was that though this was the case, the Dacres were not without rivals – and not just the Cliffords. Or to put it another way, it was not that the Dacre family was too strong but that it was too weak – too weak always to impose its will, even with royal support.
What has been described so far is merely the tip of an iceberg. In August 1523 the earl of Surrey found ‘the greatest dissensions’ amongst the gentlemen of Yorkshire, who would have fought each other, given half a chance, if they had met, and he singled out six factions who were particularly at loggerheads. Though he had taken immediate steps to end the conflicts, he still required, so he informed Wolsey, the sending out of royal letters to ensure that they would stop quarrelling and be ready to serve him at a day’s notice.23 In October of the same year he wrote that he was forced to lead in person the Lancashire contingent for ‘there is some little displeasure amongst them, and no man among them by whom they will be ruled.’24 These letters underline the point that not only were local rivalries inimical to ‘good government’ in the North, but they seriously hampered its defence. Families were unwilling to put aside their mutual dislike, even in the face of the common enemy from over the border. The result was that time and again the senior military man in the area, whether it was Surrey in 1523 or Dacre or Shrewsbury on earlier occasions, had great difficulty in persuading the leading Northern families to turn up on time and with the right number of men; hence the great number of requests for royal intervention in order to get them to do so.25 The conclusion to be drawn is that in no sense was the Crown looking to ‘divide and rule’, if only because the divisions were already all too apparent. The rifts between noble and gentry families – and those of the latter were usually the consequence of the former – benefited the Crown not one iota. Recognizing this, the Crown expended a considerable amount of time and effort to minimize their harmful effects. It was precisely in an attempt to solve these problems that great noblemen were used to govern the North, for only they had the necessary power and prestige to impose order on ‘a cumbrous country’.26
There was, however, one considerable difficulty. For reasons which will shortly be discussed, the obvious candidate for great office in the North, the 5th earl of Northumberland, was considered unsuitable. The result was a power vacuum into which the rather less powerful noblemen such as Dacre and Clifford only uneasily fitted, and then only in ‘normal’ circumstances. When times were abnormal, as for instance from 1522 to 1524 when Albany threatened invasion, the need for a great nobleman was so strong that one had to be found even if he lacked his own power base in the North: thus in 1522 the earl of Shrewsbury, and in 1523 and 1524 the earl of Surrey. When, by the end of 1527, circumstances were again unusual – this time as a result of Lisle’s activities – the 5th earl of Northumberland had died, enabling his heir to be given high office.
There is no reason to suppose that Wolsey had any doubts about the wisdom of appointing such men. He almost certainly recommended Shrewsbury in 1522, because Surrey, the obvious choice, given his previous experience of the North, was already involved in directing the war with France, and when he was no longer needed for that purpose, he was immediately given the Northern command.27 As for the 6th earl of Northumberland, he had very close connections with Wolsey, who almost certainly favoured his appointment. However, it can of course be argued that just because the circumstances resulting in these appointments were unusual, and for the period from 1522 to 1524 very much involved with military matters, they can tell us little about Wolsey’s more general attitude to the day-to-day administration of the North and to the question of who should be in charge. And, after all, neither Shrewsbury nor Surrey was resident in the North for any length of time, and having so little local influence neither could be the threat to royal government in the area that a Northern nobleman might be.
What of the ‘disgrace’ of Thomas Lord Dacre in 1524-5? Is there not here some evidence of Wolsey’s suspicion of Northern noblemen? Certainly Dacre was not afraid to act independently. In September 1522, he had made a truce with Albany without either his immediate superior, the earl of Shrewsbury’s, or Wolsey’s, permission.28 In the following September he was arousing both Henry’s and Wolsey’s suspicion by his unwillingness to carry out their instructions to use the ‘great rod’ against the Scots.29 Also, beginning in 1522, there was mounting criticism of Dacre’s rule in the North, leading two years later to specific charges being made against him, charges that were to result in his removal from office.30 Before looking at Dacre’s ‘disgrace’ in more detail, it is worth making the point that whatever Wolsey’s general attitude towards the Northern nobility was, it took him at least seven years to do anything about Dacre’s rule. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that even by 1524 he was anxious to remove him. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that Dacre himself wished to retire, at any rate from the wardenship of the East and Middle Marches.31 He had never had any illusions about his effectiveness in these two areas; his family lacked real power in both of them, but especially in the Middle March, and he had always found it difficult to assert his authority as warden.32 For over a decade he had done his best to perform a rather thankless task, and now that he was well into his fifties he seems to have genuinely desired a respite. He may also have guessed which way the wind was blowing and have been anxious to get out before the storm broke over his head. When in November 1523, following Surrey’s resignation, Dacre was reappointed to the wardenship of the East and Middle Marches, he made his feelings known, agreeing to serve only until the following Easter in the expectation that he would then be succeeded by Lord Percy.33 Thus, in one sense, Dacre’s ‘fall’ in 1524 was one that he sought himself. Moreover, it was not as great as has often been assumed. As well as suspicion of his handling of Scottish affairs, there had also been some praise. Wolsey had, for instance, taken the view that even his unauthorized truce with Albany was greatly to England’s advantage, though this was partly because, being unauthorized, it could easily be repudiated.34 Moreover, Wolsey never failed to recognize that Dacre’s knowledge of Scottish affairs was of great value to the Crown35
and in 1524-5, at a time when important negotiations with Scotland were taking place, he had no intention of dispensing with it. In 1525 Dacre returned from London without any of his wardenships and bound by heavy recognizances, but also as one of the chief commissioners to treat with the Scots.36 His treatment in London had been severe. Wolsey and the Council appear to have accepted much of the criticism of his wardenship, and no doubt they were right to do so,37 but they also seem to have realized that the rule of the North was virtually impossible without the co-operation of the Dacres. Further evidence for such a view is provided by the appointment in August 1525 of Dacre’s brother, Sir Christopher, to the Council of the North, and in the following August to the post of deputy-warden of the East March.38
Dacre’s ‘disgrace’ touches upon an issue which is central to any assessment of Wolsey’s handling of Northern affairs. There is little doubt that behind much of the criticism of Dacre rule in the East and Middle Marches lay Percy resentment at exclusion from office there, just as behind the criticism of his rule in the West March lay Clifford resentment. As long ago as 1513 Dacre had had to ask for royal letters to be sent to the 5th earl of Northumberland in order to get him to provide a Percy retinue for the defence of the border.39 During the 1522 campaign against Scotland the rivalry between the two families was such that even the Percy retainers thought that the Dacres had missed an opportunity to betray Lord Percy and Lord Ogle to the Scots during the burning of Kelso.40 In December of the following year, Dacre refused a request from the 5th earl for a loan of £100.41 In fact, bearing in mind that at the same time the earl had made complaints against Dacre’s brother, the refusal had been couched in a conciliatory tone, but this may only have been because during 1523 the open criticism of Dacre’s rule pointed to the undesirability of unnecessarily offending the man who was probably its greatest exponent. Amongst the criticism was a paper concerning ‘the reformation of things necessary upon his Grace’s East and Middle Marches … and also for the ministering of justice within his Grace’s county of Northumberland, for the commonwealth and quietness of the King’s true subjects’. Its main recommendation was for ‘some great and discrete nobleman to be made warden of the East and Middle Marches to live in the county and keep all men in their duty.’ The paper was signed by Sir William Eure, John Widdrington, John Horsley and Lionel Gray. All these men appear to have had strong Percy connections, and there can have been little doubt which ‘great and discreet nobleman’ they had in mind.42
Thus, Percy pressure was involved in bringing about Dacre’s removal from office – and in one sense why not? Wealthier and more influential than any other family, including the Dacres, the Percys were the natural rulers of the East and Middle Marches – indeed, of the entire North. Even in the West March where, it has been suggested, the Dacres were the natural rulers, the Percys’ ownership of the great honour of Cockermouth gave them considerable influence. With their great estates in Sussex as well, they were in a different league from any of their Northern competitors. For the 1523 subsidy, the 5th earl was assessed for an income of £2,920,43 while a modern historian has estimated that his real income in that year was much nearer £4,000.44 Dacre’s may have been in the region of £1,500.45 Thus, if Henry and Wolsey were indeed anxious to make use of the natural leaders of the North, then one would expect members of the Percy family to be fully employed there. In fact, until very late in 1527, this was not the case; and the man who was never appointed to high office was the man one would most expect to have been – Henry Percy 5th earl of Northumberland.
How did this come about? The first difficulty about the 5th earl, as far as the Crown was concerned, was that when, after his father’s murder at Cocklodge in 1489, he succeeded to the title, he was only eleven. This may have resulted in some financial advantage for the Crown, but it also meant that for the next decade the earl would not be available for employment in royal service. However, his long minority does not explain why after 1498 he was still denied important office. What makes this even more surprising is that he appears to have made a successful start to his career. In 1492 he was present at the signing of the Treaty of Êtaples. Two years later he played a prominent part in the ceremonies surrounding the installation of the infant Prince Henry as Knight of the Bath and duke of York. In the following year he became a knight of the garter and in 1497 he helped to put down the Cornish rebels at Blackheath – all this before he received livery of his lands in May 1498. In 1501 he was appointed constable of Knaresborough, and from this time on he served on various local commissions as well as continuing to play a full part in ceremonies at court. He also took part, though probably only in an honorific capacity, in the negotiations for the proposed marriage between Duke Charles and Princess Mary, Henry VIII’s daughter.46 If none of this is particularly surprising for a young nobleman brought up as a royal ward, there is also nothing in it to suggest royal disfavour. Yet despite its favourable beginnings, the 5th earl’s career in royal service never really took off. One explanation for this may have been his ‘ravishment’ of Elizabeth Hastings, which is to say that the Crown had claimed successfully that she was a royal ward and that therefore the 5th earl, by arranging her marriage, had trespassed on the royal prerogative. On the face of it, the offence does not seem very serious, but towards the end of Henry VII’s reign it was dangerous for anyone to be found encroaching upon royal rights, and what may have inclined the king to take a serious view was the fact that the 5th earl had already been involved in a series of disputes and incidents with Thomas Savage, archbishop of York and Henry’s leading representative in the North.47 But for whatever reason, Northumberland’s punishment was severe – in 1505 a fine of £10,000, later reduced to £5,000 to be paid in annual instalments of 1,000 marks. To ensure that the money was paid, certain Percy estates were to be administered by royal feoffees, and their revenues to come to the Crown.48 All this cannot have made for continuing good relations between the Percys and Tudors, but too much can be read into it. There is little doubt that Henry VII was determined to ensure that no one, not even a Percy, should trespass on his rights, but this does not mean that he was conducting a vendetta against any particular family, or that he saw Northumberland as a ‘feudal magnate’ or ‘over-mighty subject’.
At this stage, it is worth asking what reason had the early Tudors for fearing the Percys? They were wealthy and could, in theory at any rate, put into the field a very considerable force. One estimate puts it as high as eleven thousand men, comprising about seven thousand foot soldiers and four thousand horse.49 And if this seems a little exaggerated, the 5th earl did take a retinue of over five hundred men to France in 1513,50 and for the Scottish campaign of 1523 raised a force of about eight hundred and fifty.51 Even these numbers are large, but not such as seriously to challenge the Tudor regime – except in peculiar circumstances, and then in combination with other noblemen. In 1536, the ‘break with Rome’ and subsequent dissolution of the monasteries and other religious changes, real or imagined, did produce the peculiar circumstances, and the result was the Pilgrimage of Grace. This, for a time, did pose an extremely serious threat, but in the end it was quite easily overcome, just because in the crisis the leading noblemen remained loyal to the Crown.52 Without the peculiar circumstances, and given the rivalries amongst the Northern families, it is hard to see what steps a disgruntled Percy could take to challenge the Tudor state.
One possibility was to combine with that other disgruntled nobleman, the duke of Buckingham. In 1509, there was a rumour emanating from Northumberland’s servants that Buckingham should become ‘protector of England’ and that the 5th earl should ‘rule all from the Trent North’. If this did not come about and ‘their Lord had not rooms in the North as his father had’ – that is to say, the wardenship of the East and Middle Marches – ‘it should not long be well’.53 The 5th earl never did become warden of any March, but neither did things go especially badly, and perhaps too much should not be made of an isolated report of servants’ go
ssip. It has already been shown that there was no conspiracy to destroy Buckingham – only that the duke’s unwillingness to play the role of a royal servant meant that his relationship with Henry could not be close.54 The same may well be true of the 5th earl, though the evidence is so slight that any assessment must be tentative. Although he failed to obtain high office, he was never completely disgraced, and certainly not at the time of Buckingham’s downfall in 1521, even though Wolsey was forced to deny rumours that he had been.55 Thus, if he was ever very close to the duke – if, for instance, he was one of the noblemen whom the duke had found to be too frightened to plan concerted action against Henry’s government56 – he clearly was not considered to be so in 1521. He had, however, come under suspicion in 1518, being one of the noblemen, along with Buckingham, Suffolk, Derby and Wiltshire, on whom Henry had asked Wolsey to keep a close watch. Although in March 1510 he had been released from all recognizances entered into in Henry VII’s reign for his ‘ravishment’ of Elizabeth Hastings, six years later he was once more in trouble with the Crown, for an offence that may have again concerned the royal rights to wardship. At any rate, at about this time he was defendant in a Star Chamber case during the course of which he appeared not only before an unusually large number of royal councillors, but also the king himself.57 He was then placed in the Fleet prison, and was only released after a telling-off from the king.58 The Crown’s treatment of the 5th earl in 1516 was very public, very conscious, and must have been, for the earl, very humiliating, but again some caution must be exercised in drawing any conclusion. The Crown was not saying ‘down with all noblemen’, or even ‘down with all Northern noblemen’, but was publicly making the point that nobody, not even a Percy, was above the law. The worst that can be said, therefore, is that the 5th earl was a victim of Wolsey’s drive to assert the principle of ‘indifferent justice’, though it was careless of the earl, if not downright foolish, to have infringed upon the royal prerogative a second time – if that was his offence.
