Following the collapse of Bigod and Hallam’s renewed revolts in the New Year, Norfolk was able to restore order and peace in the North. Trials were held and guilty verdicts were reached in the cases of the Lincolnshire rebels. However, an interesting trial at the end of March sheds some light on the interlinked themes of retribution and reward. Witnesses were examined in relation to Bigod and Hallam’s ventures and one witness, William Levenyng, was brought to trial. It is recorded that some of the jury thought the accused guilty of felony upon the evidence given at the bar by Sir Ralph Ellerker, but seven others held to the contrary and stated that Ellerker had given evidence out of malice because the king had given him part of Levenyng’s lands.21 The result was that Levenyng was acquitted. But it is interesting to note the perception of the jurors as to what Ellerker’s motivation was and also to consider the fact that Henry appears to have deprived Levenyng of some of his lands based upon a presumption of guilt.
By mid-May, Ellerker was firmly established on the road to rehabilitation and presented himself in the guise of trusty, loyal servant to the king. He was one of a small number of men appointed to the Yorkshire Commission for the trial of Lords Darcy and Hussey ‘to take in the counties of York, city of York, and town of Kingston upon Hull indictments of all treasons … lately committed’.22 Cromwell recorded that Ellerker had informed him that he had discharged the garrison at Hull and that he had incurred £68 3s 3d in unpaid expenses. Ellerker sought to gain Strangwich for his brother, who had served without wages, and requested a letter for the stewardship of Watton, previously held by Sir Robert Constable.23 Ellerker was clearly looking to be reimbursed for his expenses at the garrison in Hull but he also took the opportunity of obtaining favour for his brother, Thomas. The specification of Robert Constable’s lands also illustrates the link between retribution and reward.
By early June, Ellerker was hard at work on his commission in Yorkshire. He was sent by the Duke of Norfolk (also on the commission) to arrest one Thomas Strangewyge, who had been Lord Darcy’s steward. Norfolk confirmed this in a letter to Cromwell and also stated that he had asked Ellerker to search for writings concerning the king. Ellerker had apparently found such writings and had forwarded them to Cromwell. Ellerker’s diligence and attention to detail were soon to be rewarded for, within a couple of weeks, Norfolk had recommended him to the king for a position on the Council of the North. This recommendation was reiterated in a letter to Cromwell with the additional suggestion that Ellerker receive a pension of £40.24
In July, Ellerker was appointed to assist Sir William Eure, Deputy Warden of the East and Middle Marches, and was granted a fee of £20 per annum. Norfolk was still championing Ellerker’s cause when he wrote to Cromwell from Sheriff Hutton with regard to Sir Thomas Tempest. He also mentioned Sir Ralph Ellerker and Robert Bowes who, he said, were short of money when it was advisable that they be rewarded and encouraged for diligent and careful service. Ellerker was confirmed as a member of the Council of the North with a fee of 100 marks per year, and we see him performing his duties in October at York Castle when, together with John Uvedale, he examined one John Petenson for sedition, with the result that Petenson was indicted and subsequently executed for treason.25
This newly re-constituted Council of the North covered the five northern counties of Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland. It exercised executive authority and was the Supreme Court of Justice north of the Trent. The council was to investigate the grounds for the insurrection and its ringleaders and ‘to make every effort to secure the ringleaders or captains, if these had committed any offence since the pardon’. The Bishop of Llandaff became lord president of the council and was required to summon the council for four general sessions a year for the administration of justice. The maintenance of order, good governance and the implementation of the king’s religious, social and economic policies were what Henry required of the council. The Privy Council forwarded directions for the apprehension and examination of suspected criminals and all royal proclamations were made through the Council of the North.26
The very fact that Ralph Ellerker was a prominent member of such a body within a year of his being sworn by the rebel Pilgrims is a telling indication of just how speedily and effectively his rehabilitation had been achieved. Ellerker was demonstrably diligent in the pursuit of his duties on the Council of the North. In December 1537, he was present at York when charges were made against the Vicar of Mustone, Sir John Dobson, including the charge that he had not prayed for the king for over a year.27 The following spring, Ellerker examined suspects accused of anti-regime sedition, including Mabel Brigge who, together with the Vicar of Mustone and another priest, John Ainsworth, was found guilty of treason on 7 April and subsequently executed.28 Ellerker was also busy throughout this period surveying castles in the region, including Pickering and Scarborough castles.29
He received further reward in June when he was appointed chief steward of the king’s possessions in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, which came about because of the attainder of Sir Robert Constable with a fee of £5 a year. Thus Ellerker’s request for recompense was granted. Sir William Eure and Lord Clifford were also appointed as chief stewards of the possessions of the abbot of Jervaulx and Sir Stephen Hamerton respectively, which had been forfeited by attainder. The link between retribution and reward is clearly highlighted here.
The following month, Ellerker and his brother, Thomas, were appointed as Justices of the Peace for Yorkshire. Here is clear evidence of Ellerker’s success as a broker. Ellerker was a busy man and was entrusted with further responsibility, together with Robert Bowes, when given a commission in October to hold an Inquisition Post Mortem on the possessions of Walter Calvery, and was in attendance at Carlisle in December to keep the sessions.30
In 1539, he succeeded his father, Sir Ralph senior, as head of the family on the latter’s death. In August, Ralph remained the steward of Sir Robert Constable’s lands, with a fee of £5 and also had a fee of £56 13s 4d per annum as a member of the Council of the North. On 2 June 1540, Ellerker was granted the house and site of the late priory of Haltamprice, Yorkshire, with various lands in both Haltamprice and Cotingham.31 A Pilgrim who had appeared, ostensibly at least, to be concerned with the role of the monasteries was now the beneficiary of the demise of such an institution.
In September 1541, together with Robert Bowes, he was entrusted with the task of surveying the borders and estimating the expense of fortification against future Scottish raids. The king wrote of his approval of their proceedings in October. Ellerker was granted the house, lands, buildings and church of the Grey Friars in Beverley, Yorkshire, the following April. August 1542 saw Ellerker appointed Marshall of Calais and he was involved in the siege of Boulogne between July and September 1544. He was subsequently made Marshall of Boulogne after its capture. In March 1545, Sir Ralph was given a grant of Grange Farm in Beeford, Yorkshire.32
Ellerker died whilst on service abroad, following a French ambush on 26 April 1546. The Earl of Hertford (Queen Jane Seymour’s brother) reported that a witness saw him lying dead on the sands after being wounded through the stomach.33 He was succeeded by his son, yet another Ralph.34 Sir Ralph Ellerker made his will in June 1545 and although the preamble is traditional in form, it is interesting to note that there are no provisions made for Masses for his soul.35 The Inquisition Post Mortem which survives was taken in 1547.36 Sir Ralph’s successor, his son Ralph, only outlived his father by four years.
In the space of a decade, Ellerker had managed the transition from prominent rebel to trusted and loyal servant of the Crown. He was able to rapidly rehabilitate himself; he became a member of the Council of the North and featured in the prosecutions of his former Pilgrim adherents. It is difficult to assess the ramifications for his successors, as his son and heir only lived for a further four years.
Ellerker’s career is intertwined with that of his companion and reformed Pilgrim, Robert Bowes. Bowes’ service to the Crown
began with his appointment to the Duke of Richmond’s council in 1525 but he surrendered Barnard Castle to the Pilgrims without resistance and delivered the rebels’ petitions to the king.37 Bowes had something in common with Sir Francis Bigod, in so far as his motives are something of an enigma to historians.38 As Bowes had Cardinal Wolsey to thank for his promotion to the higher echelons of northern administration, it may have been that he was not overly enamoured of Thomas Cromwell. By 1536, Bowes, like many of the northern gentry, had cause for dissatisfaction with the Crown’s policies, but perhaps it was the passage of the Second Succession Act, with the provision that the Crown could be bequeathed by will, which was of paramount importance to Bowes, given his legal training.39
It is highly unlikely that, in Bowes’ case, the cause of religion was the catalyst for his initial rebellious stance. Bowes had studied at the Inns of Court and the Protestant inclinations of the Inns influenced the religious thinking of many figures of the English Reformation, including Thomas Cromwell. By the time the Pilgrimage broke out, it is arguable that Bowes’ paramount concern was the fear of a Scottish succession as opposed to the king’s religious innovations. Indeed, Newman argues that by the time of the uprisings, Bowes may well have held Reformist views which were subsequently to ‘fuel the Streatlam family’s remarkable attachment to Protestantism, in an age when much of northern society remained notoriously conservative in religion’.40
As will be seen in due course, Bowes initially supported the plot to put the Protestant Lady Jane Grey on the throne in 1553 and his niece actually married the Scottish reformer John Knox.41 At any rate, Bowes’ stance as a rebel was relatively short-lived and his visit to Court with Ellerker appears to have been a decisive turning point. The pragmatic Bowes appears to have been motivated by his own survival and the prospect of political advancement in the North. As Newman has put it, ‘the Pilgrimage proved to be the movement which propelled Bowes firmly into the political limelight and served to determine the course of his subsequent career’.42
As with Ellerker, we soon witness Bowes portraying himself as a loyal and trustworthy servant and playing the role of peacemaker. In the aftermath of Bigod and Hallam’s futile risings, Ralph Sadler wrote of Bowes’ conduct in a letter to Cromwell on 28 January 1537. Bowes, he advised, was based at Durham but went about the countryside to ensure its quietness. Revealingly, he was of the opinion that if Bowes and the other gentlemen had behaved in this manner at the start, an insurrection would not have occurred.43 Sadler’s comments, however, could be construed as a back-handed compliment and perhaps left room for lingering doubt as to Bowes’ integrity.
John Dakyn, the rector of Kirkby Ravensworth, went some way to casting doubt with regard to Bowes’ conduct in a statement made in March. Dakyn was examined with regard to the formulation of the Pontefract Articles and stated that Mr Robert Bowes was the most influential.44 Notwithstanding this, by the end of April, Cromwell was disposed to include Bowes in a list of individuals to be remembered for their service, and in May Bowes, together with Ellerker and others, was given a special commission to examine all indictments of treasons in the county of York, the City of York and Kingston upon Hull. This was followed by Norfolk recommending Bowes for a position on the Council of the North in a letter to the king. Again, Norfolk reiterated this suggestion to Cromwell with a suggestion that Bowes receive a pension of £20.45
Norfolk was mindful of Bowes and Ellerker’s importance in securing the peaceful governance of the North and desired Cromwell to be a good lord to them, as they should be recompensed in order that they be encouraged to ‘take pains’. Norfolk continued to value Bowes’ ability and this was evident a few months later when he advised Cromwell that he was sending up the bearer, Robert Bowes, as he promised the king. He requested that Cromwell dispatch him in time to arrive the following Monday night, as on Tuesday, Norfolk would have matters of importance requiring his help. Bowes’ membership of the Council of the North was confirmed and his fee is recorded as being 100 marks per annum (the same as Ellerker’s). He was subsequently appointed as a Justice of the Peace for Yorkshire in November.46
Bowes set about discharging his duties and he was part of a panel which examined Sir William Bulmer (brother of John Bulmer, previously executed) in March 1538. He was also among those who found the unfortunate Mabel Brigge, John Dobson and John Ainsworth guilty of treason. Bowes requested a place for his nephew, George Bowes, in the king’s service in November 1538 – here we see an example of him seeking patronage for another – and by early December, Robert was busy, engaged in the sessions at Carlisle. He was also involved in the apprehension of three Scots who had been found in possession of a ‘suspicious’ letter in March 1539. Bowes was returned as a Knight of the Shire in 1539; he was subsequently returned in 1542, 1545 (for Newcastle), 1547 (for Westmorland) and 1553 (for Middlesex). Bowes was granted an annuity of £100 in March 1544.47
Bowes was appointed Warden of the Middle Marches in March 1545, following the death of Sir Ralph Eure (Evers), and a number of letters from him to both the Privy Council and King Henry from this period survive.48 Following the death of Sir Cuthbert Ratclif, Constable of Alnwick Castle and steward of the king’s lands in Northumberland, Hertford, Tunstall and Sadler petitioned the king on Bowes’ behalf, stating that he did not have any patrimony in the locality. Approximately a week later, the Privy Council confirmed that Bowes should be appointed to all Ratclif’s offices.
In December, Bowes received a payment from the king of £25. Despite this, Bowes was still bemoaning his poverty to the council the following May and requesting that his very small living be increased. To justify his claim he stated that all on the Borders agreed that no Borderer had achieved so many great adventures for the king’s honour. By showing him favour the council would be doing a good deed and encouraging those who earnestly served there. Here, Bowes reveals that he was acutely aware of the fact that loyalty should be rewarded. In January 1547, the month of King Henry’s death, Bowes was granted a further £50 annuity out of the manor of Bothall, Northumberland, together with various lands and the wardship of Robert, Lord Ogle in Northumberland.49 It is indicative of his advancement and standing in the locality that he was given the wardship of a peer: there were nobles in the area who would most probably have expected to undertake this role.
Bowes was obviously well acquainted with frontier society, and after the accession of Edward VI he became Warden of the East March in April 1548. However, he appears not to have acted in this role after 1551, the same year as he compiled a more comprehensive survey of the Borders. Bowes concluded that the ‘whole countrey’ of Northumberland was ‘much given to wildnes’.50 He was, however, appointed as one of the commissioners who negotiated a Treaty of Peace with Scotland in 1551,51 and was made a Privy Councillor, residing in London in the autumn of that year. Bowes had been trained as a lawyer and was subsequently appointed to the position of Master of the Rolls in 1552.52
In 1553, Bowes was a member of the council and signed the letters patent to facilitate King Edward’s ‘device’ bypassing Mary and Elizabeth, with the objective of allowing Lady Jane Grey to succeed to the throne. Bowes’ family, by this stage, had become closely associated with John Knox so his actions were, it could be construed, both religiously and politically motivated. However, it appears that when he realised which way the wind was blowing during the crisis which ensued in July, he signed the council’s order for the Duke of Northumberland to disarm. However, he was obviously compromised and could not initially remain in office, although he received a general pardon in October. The queen still required his expertise in Anglo-Scottish affairs and as such, Bowes soon regained the favour of Queen Mary and on 27 April 1554, he received a present of £100 from her, and was then sent north and was active in Berwick, surveying the town’s defences and organising musters. He died there on 28 February 1555 whilst reviewing the garrison defences.53
Bowes’ children had all died in childhood and his heirs were the three
daughters of his nephew, George Bowes. Unfortunately, a copy of his will has not been located but his inventory describes his possessions, which included a gold chain valued at £109 17s.54 His wealth was valued at £188 2s 4d,55 hence he was a wealthy country gentleman.
As Newman has argued, Bowes benefited from the administrative predicament in which the government found itself in relation to the North – as a penitent ex-rebel he was only too eager to display his loyalty to the Crown.56 Like Ellerker, Bowes had managed a totally successful rehabilitation. In his case, the evidence suggests that, although pragmatic, he probably had Protestant leanings: his niece’s marriage to John Knox illustrates the Reformist tendencies of some of the family. His initial rebellious stance may well have been due to his legal concerns with regard to the succession and a distrust and distaste for Cromwell’s growing influence. A man of such legal and administrative competence was just the sort of individual the Crown required for the efficient government of the North. This former Pilgrim managed to navigate his way through three reigns as a servant of the Crown and attained high office as both a Privy Councillor and Master of the Rolls. The former rebel ended up being a frequent correspondent of the Scottish monarch57 – a man given a second chance who seized it and capitalised on the opportunities it presented.
The successful political rehabilitation of Sir Ralph Ellerker and Sir Robert Bowes, two of the most high-profile individuals involved in the Pilgrimage of Grace, has been examined. It is now time to investigate the roles played by a number of other men in the aftermath of the Pilgrimage and seek to identify the ways in which they sought to achieve rehabilitation and demonstrate loyalty to the Crown. Some managed the transition and benefited materially as a result. The impact this had upon their successors will also be discussed.
Insurrection Page 12
