Chapter XVIII

. The fate which overwhelmed the Religious Gilds during the reign of Edward VI. had, doubtless, some effect on the Trading Companies and Brotherhoods of Craftsmen. But the last-named were very largely excepted from the Suppression of the Gilds in 1547, and their gradual decay and final extinction were due to the introduction of new industries and new methods of working. The _Hull Merchants’ Company_ became extinct in 1706, there was still existing at Beverley in 1752 the _Brotherhood of the Barkers or Tanners_, and the last entry in the Book of the _Hull Fraternity of Coopers_ is dated 1788.

XX. THE SUPPRESSION OF THE MONASTERIES AND THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE.

In a previous chapter were described the various buildings of a monastery and the mode of life of its inmates. And at the end of the chapter reference was made to the gradual loss of those high ideals which had been the origin of the many hundred monasteries that existed in our country at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The results of that loss will now be described.

The benefits to the country at large arising from the establishment of these religious houses had been great. They served as hotels for the rich and as almshouses for the poor. The Cistercian monks were pioneers in agriculture. Both monks and friars got together libraries of books—that at Meaux Abbey contained 324 volumes in 1539—and were mostly diligent scribes. Thus they helped to spread the means of learning.

But by the beginning of the sixteenth century many Houses had outlived their usefulness. Their inmates had decreased in numbers until only six monks remained where sixty had once been. Laxity of discipline crept in with this decrease of numbers. Hence it seemed right to suppress the small and useless religious houses, and to apply their revenues to other useful purposes.

This was the thought in the minds of both Cardinal Wolsey and the Pope of Rome when in 1524 the one applied for a certain Papal Bull and the other granted it. It was to the effect that various small monasteries to the annual value of three thousand ducats should be suppressed, and their revenues used to endow the new ‘Cardinal College’ which Wolsey was then planning to build at Oxford. Four years later permission was granted to suppress others to the annual value of eight thousand ducats. In the following year King Henry VIII. was given permission to suppress others to the annual value of ten thousand ducats, and to apply their revenues to the foundation of new cathedrals.

‘Very right and proper,’ you will probably think. ‘The money was going to be put to a better use.’ Yes, but these suppressions might point out to some unscrupulous adviser of the King a means whereby large supplies of money could easily be obtained; and if the King happened to be in need of money and was not very scrupulous as to the manner in which that money were obtained, it might become a very dangerous precedent.

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] The Gateway of Kirkham Priory. [_H.F. Farr_

]

This is just what it did become. King Henry VIII. was not a particularly scrupulous man in more ways than one, and his chief adviser after Cardinal Wolsey’s death was particularly unscrupulous. Acting on the advice of Thomas Cromwell, Parliament, at the close of 1535, ordered a ‘Visitation’ of the monasteries throughout the country, and the presentation of a report based on the results of this. Accordingly, two ‘Visitors’ were appointed, who in the short space of six weeks visited, or were said to have visited, eighty-eight monasteries in the dioceses of Coventry, Lichfield and York.

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

Ruins of the East End of the Church of Kirkham Priory.

]

The report presented to Parliament was named THE BLACK BOOK, and its nature was such that in February, 1536, Parliament ordered the suppression of all monasteries that had an annual income of less than £200. As a result 376 religious houses were suppressed, their inmates were transferred to the larger houses or left to shift for themselves, and their lands, to the annual value of £32,000, were forfeited to the King. All the monasteries and nunneries in the East Riding thus came to an end except those at Kirkham, Meaux, Watton and Bridlington, whose annual incomes amounted to £269, £299, £360 and £547 respectively.

* * * * *

In most parts of the country this suppression of the smaller monasteries caused no great stir. Undoubtedly some of them needed suppression. Undoubtedly, too, the report which got about, that the confiscation of the wealth of the religious houses would provide so much money for the government that there would thenceforth be no taxes for the common folk to pay, tended to prevent an outcry from being raised by the people. But in two counties there were rebellions. The first, in Lincolnshire, proved of little account; but the second, which had its origin in Yorkshire, was a formidable rising to which was given the name of _The Pilgrimage of Grace_.

In this rising all the north of England was concerned. The great Abbeys of Yorkshire exercised a powerful influence over the minds of the people, and a widespread religious ferment broke out. Lord Darcy, Earl of Holderness, Sir Robert Constable of Flamborough, Sir Thomas Percy, brother of the Earl of Northumberland, and many other northern nobles threw in their lot with the rebellious commoners. Soon forty thousand men were enrolled under the command of Robert Aske, a Westminster lawyer and brother of John Aske, the lord of the manor of Aughton-on-Derwent.

The demands of Aske and his followers were:—

(1) The restoration of the suppressed monasteries;

(2) The expulsion of counsellors of low birth from the King’s court;

(3) The holding of Parliament and of a Court of Justice at York as well as at London.[45]

Footnote 45:

This third demand resulted in the formation of the ‘Council of the North,’ which met at York during the next hundred years.

Thus the rebellion had both a religious and a political aspect, but the former was that which was most apparent. The suppression of the smaller monasteries was to be followed by the closing and pulling down of the smaller parish churches, and the church plate was to be confiscated as had been that of the abbeys and priories. That was—so people said—the intention of Thomas Cromwell, the counsellor of low birth against whom their second demand was aimed. So the men of the North were up in arms in defence of their religious liberties; and as they marched behind the processional crosses brought from their parish churches, they wore on their sleeves a roughly-made badge of the ‘five wounds of Christ.’

* * * * *

[Illustration:

BADGE OF THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE. The letters ‘I G’ stand for the Latin words _Itinerarium Gratiae_—the Pilgrimage of Grace. ]

Robert Aske had been crossing by the ferry from Brough to Barton at the close of the ‘long vacation’ of 1536 when he was told by the boatmen that the Commons were ‘up’ in Lincolnshire. Another London barrister, William Stapleton, the son of Sir Brian Stapleton of Wighill, similarly heard of the Lincolnshire rising while he was waiting at Hull to cross the river. He had been staying with his eldest brother, ‘a very weake, craysid and ympotent man’, in the Grey Friary at Beverley. This was apparently a much-frequented health resort; for his brother was ‘lying there for chaunge of ayer as he had doon the somer before from Maye till after Mydsommer.’

It was three o’clock on the morning of October 5th when Christopher Stapleton’s servant brought word to William that

all Lyncolnshere was up from Barton to Lincoln ... and that Grauntham way was stopped as well as Lincoln, so that no man could passe to london vntaken.

So William Stapleton had perforce to remain waiting in Hull.

Meanwhile Robert Aske was sending out letters to the men of the East Riding, and on Sunday, October 8th, the town bell at Beverley was set ringing and the townsmen ‘took oathe to the comons.’ Then

with greate noyse, showtes, and cryes they made proclamation everye man to appere at Westwood grene the morrowe after with suche horse and harnes as they had upon payne of death.

Great was the alarm of the ‘weake, craysid’ Christopher at these doings, and he gave orders to his people that they should keep themselves within doors. But his wife had determined otherwise, and went out to talk over the hedge and learn what was happening. ‘Where is your husband and his folkes that he cometh not as other dooth?’ she was asked, and her reply made quite clear which way her sympathies lay. ‘They be in the freers, goo pull them oute by the heddes.’

Christopher Stapleton’s wife had evidently paid more heed to the advice of a certain Carthusian monk, ‘Sir Thomas Johnson, otherwise called Bonadventure,’ who was at that time an inmate of the Grey Friary, than she had to the commands of her husband.

The lady’s suggestion came very near being carried out on the following morning. But appearances were saved by William Stapleton and his brother Brian’s coming out on the ‘Westwood grene’ to take their oath, while ‘certayne honnest men’ were sent to record the oath of Christopher. Whereat Christopher’s wife and the Carthusian monk were ‘very joyous and merye,’ while outside on the ‘grene’ there were unanimous cries: ‘Maister William Stapulton shelbe our Captayne.’

* * * * *

William Stapleton thus became one of the leaders of the insurgents. By his orders Hunsley beacon and Tranby beacon were fired; men came in from _Newbalde_ and _North Cave_, _Brantyngham_, _Cottingham_ and _Hassell_; and a small army of nine thousand marched to _Wighton Hill_, there to meet Robert Aske, who had ‘raysed all Howdenshire and Marshelande.’

Following the plan of campaign decided upon at Weighton, Aske with the main part of the army of insurgents marched to York, which surrendered on October 16th, and thence to Pontefract, which he captured four days later. Meanwhile Stapleton laid siege to Hull, encamping his men close to the Beverley Gate. The city was being held for the King by Sir Ralph Ellerker and Sir John Constable, neither of whom would hear of surrender; for they were determined, as Sir John Constable put it, rather to ‘dye with honneste than lyve with shame.’

An easy way to effect the capture of the town was pointed out by one of Stapleton’s men, who said that

with one barell of pyche fiered and sent downe with the tyde he would sett on fyer all the shippes in the haven.

But Stapleton would have none of such methods, and, much to the disgust of the more unruly of his men, he even forbade the firing of the windmills near the Beverley Gate.

The leader of this besieging force was a strict disciplinarian. He would allow no pillaging, and gave orders that every man must pay honestly for what he took. But ‘spoylinges and prevy pickinges’ did happen, nevertheless;

wheruppon he badde watche and take some therewith, and prove what he shuld doo. And theruppon they toke one Barton a fletcher whiche the said William had put in trust to kepe their vittall, and also one nawghty fellow a saynetewary[46] man of Beverley and a comen picker taken with picking muche thinges.

Wheruppon ... he cawsed to take the same twoo, and made them beleve they shulde dye, and theruppon assigned a freer to them being in his companye, advysing them to make them clene to God ...; after the whiche so doon the said William callid for one Spalding a waterman and in the presence of all men causede them to be called oute, and the seyntuary man was tyed by the middell with a rope to thende of the bote and so haled over the water and seuerall tymes put downe with the oore over the hedde. And thother seeing him thought to be so handiled, howbeit at the request of honest men he being a howsekeper, he was suffered to goo unponyshed and so bothe bannyshed the hoost.

Footnote 46:

Sanctuary.

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

Howden Church from the South. Showing how the east end of the church has been destroyed.

]

A very satisfactory mode of punishment it turned out to be. For after this ‘there was never spoile in the company of the said William.’

The conclusion of the _Pilgrimage_ must be briefly told. The defenders of Hull finally surrendered on honourable terms. Aske, after taking Pontefract, went south to Doncaster, where negotiations were opened with the Duke of Norfolk, Commander-in-Chief of the King’s forces. As a result of these negotiations Aske was granted a safe-conduct to visit the King in London, and returned home on January 8th, with a promise that the King would visit York next Whitsuntide and hold there a Parliament at which all grievances should be considered. Satisfied with this success Aske disbanded his men.

All might now have gone well. But unfortunately for those who had been concerned in the rebellion, a certain Sir Francis Bigod and John Hallam, a servant of Sir Robert Constable, formed plans for seizing the towns of Scarborough, Beverley, and Hull, and beginning the rebellion again. Their attempts failed, and were made the occasion of a withdrawal of the terms previously offered by the King, and the taking of ruthless measures to stamp out the insurrection.

* * * * *

The results of the Pilgrimage of Grace proved terrible for the ringleaders. Robert Aske was decoyed to London, arrested, tried at Westminster, exhibited as a traitor in each of the towns where he had been welcomed as a deliverer of the people, and finally hanged, drawn, and quartered at York. Sir Robert Constable was hanged in chains on the Beverley Gate of Hull, Lord Darcy was beheaded on Tower Hill, Sir John Bulmer was hanged at Tyburn, and his wife was burnt at the stake. The abbots of Fountains, Rievaulx, and Jervaulx, together with the Prior of Bridlington, were also hanged at Tyburn; and an excuse was thus made for the forfeiture of their Houses to the King.

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

Howden Church—Ruins of the Chapter House.

]

When, in 1536, the decree for the suppression of the smaller monasteries was issued, Parliament thanked God that ‘in divers and great solemn monasteries of the realm, religion is right well kept and observed.’ The Abbots of some of these were induced to surrender voluntarily—‘willingly to consent and agree’ to the destruction of their Abbeys and the confiscation of all their property. The Abbots of others were convicted of high treason, and their Abbeys declared forfeited. One hundred and fifty surrendered during 1538–9, and by 1540 all had been suppressed.

The sale of the Abbey lands realised a sum of money equal to £8,500,000 in the money of to-day, and the value of the plunder from the shrines—gold, silver gilt, and silver crosses, chalices, and candlesticks—was not less than another million pounds. The total cash value to the King amounted to nearly £15,000,000 in our money. Of this huge sum about one-half was spent on public purposes—the foundation of new bishoprics, the building of schools, and the organisation of harbours and other national defences.[47] The remainder went into the pockets of the King’s courtiers, many of whom rose from comparative poverty to a position of wealth.

Footnote 47:

See page 208 for an example of this.

* * * * *

What the _Suppression_ meant to the religious houses of the East Riding may be judged from the following letter, written in 1538 by a servant of Thomas Cromwell to his master:—

Pleasythe your good Lordshipp to be advertysed. I have taken downe all the lead of Jervayse,[48] and made itt in pecys of half-foders, which lead amounteth to the numbre of eighteen score and five foders,[49] with thirty and foure foders, and a half, that were there before. And the said lead cannot be conveit, nor caryed unto the next sombre, for the ways in that contre are so foule, and deep, that no carrage can passe in wyntre. And as concerning the raising and taken downe the house, if itt be your Lordshipps pleasure I am minded to let itt stand to the Spring of the yere, by reason of the days are now so short it wolde be double charge to do itt now. And as concerning the selling of the bells, I cannot sell them above 15s. the hundreth,[50] wherein I would gladly know your Lordshipps pleasor, whether I should sell them after that price, or send them up to London. And if they be sent up surely the carriage wolbe costly frome that place to the water. And as for Byrdlington I have doyn nothing there as yet, but sparethe itt to March next, bycause the days now are so short, and from such tyme as I begyn I trust shortly to dyspatche itt after such fashion that when all is fynished, I trust your Lordshipp shall think that I have bene no evyll howsbound in all such things, as your Lordshipp haith appoynted me to doo. And thus the Holy Ghost ever preserve your Lordshipp in honor. At York this fourteenth day of November by your most bounden beadsman.

RICHARD BELLYCYS.

Footnote 48:

Jervaulx Abbey, in the North Riding.

Footnote 49:

A _foder_ equals 2400 lbs.

Footnote 50:

Hundredweight.

That Cromwell’s ‘most bounden beadsman’ faithfully kept his promise we see to-day in the condition of Bridlington Priory. What we call the ‘Priory Church’ is merely the nave of the church of the Augustinian Priory. Chancel and transepts have equally disappeared. So have the cloisters, chapter house, frater, dorter, Abbot’s house, and the numerous farm buildings which once stood within the Priory walls. Of the walls themselves nothing remains but the ‘Bayle Gate.’

* * * * *

A worse tale has to be told of the wilful destruction of the other monasteries, nunneries, and friaries in our Riding.

Of Kirkham Priory, on the bank of the river Derwent, there are remains only of the once beautiful gateway, the cloister court, and the east end of the church. What is now the Swine parish church was once the chancel of the nunnery church. Of the Black Friary at Beverley there are remains of the boundary wall. The oriel window of the Prior’s house is to be seen built into the modern ‘Watton Priory,’ and a few stones of the Priory of Haltemprice are built into a farmhouse which now occupies part of its site. Of the great Abbey of Meaux—founded in 1150 by William le Gros, Earl of Holderness, in redemption of a vow that he would make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and rebuilt four times during the next hundred years—there now remains not one stone in place above ground. And of the Friaries once flourishing in Hull nought remains but their mere names.

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

All that remained of Meaux Abbey in 1900.

]

‘Even where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth, even there shall the dogs lick thy blood also, O King.’ Such was the text which a certain Grey Friar used when he had occasion to preach before King Henry. A bold man he must have been thus to take his fate into his hands. What the fate of Friar Peto actually was is not recorded, but we know that the Grey Friars and the Carthusian Monks were treated with particular brutality.

Of the monks of the London Charterhouse five were hanged at Tyburn, and their bodies afterwards cut up. Ten were removed to Newgate on May 29th, 1537. Sixteen days later the following report was issued:—

There are departed 5 There are even at the point of death 2 There are sick 2 There is healed 1

Later on all but one are reported as dead, and three years afterwards that one was hanged at Tyburn. With his name we are already acquainted—‘Sir Thomas Johnson, otherwise called Bonadventure.’ Surely never was monk given a less appropriate name than his turned out to be.

XXI. HOW THE GREAT CIVIL WAR BEGAN AT HULL.

In four different centuries has England suffered the pangs of that deplorable kind of war which we are accustomed to describe by the adjective ‘Civil.’ And in each case has the cause of the war been the same—a disagreement as to who should be the ruler of the country’s destinies. In the twelfth century it was a struggle between the King and a would-be Queen, in the thirteenth a struggle between the King and his barons, in the fifteenth a struggle between two royal families, and in the seventeenth a struggle between King and Parliament. It is the fourth of these wars that has gained, from the bitterness of the struggle and the catastrophe which ended it, the additional description of ‘Great.’

Both King and Parliament are among the oldest of our national institutions. In the days of the Angles and Saxons the head of the Government was the King, but his power had not been absolute. There was a body of King’s Counsellors, the _Witena-gemōt_, who had power to depose the King if necessary, and in whose hands rested the elections to the throne.

No idea of hereditary right to the throne then existed, and after the Norman Conquest the same right of election by the people—expressed through the _Great Council_—remained. It was not, in fact, till the accession of Edward I. that the principle of hereditary succession to the throne of England became firmly recognised. Edward I. was the first of our sovereigns to become King simply because he was the son of his father, and without an expression of the will of the nation.

On the death of Queen Elizabeth it happened that the throne of England fell to the King of Scotland—a King who may be described as one-fourth English, one-fourth French, and one-half Scots, in blood. It is, therefore, not altogether strange that James I., ‘the wisest fool in Christendom,’ should fail to see things from an Englishman’s point of view, or that he should be unable to understand English customs and English institutions.

Thus it was that the King began to quarrel with his Parliament, and when Charles I. became King in his father’s stead things grew rapidly worse. According to his view, he was King of England by the manifest will of God, and as the elect of God he was bound to consult none but God; while all his subjects were bound to obey his will, as they would the will of God.

But according to the view taken by Parliament, the King was one factor only in the Government. Commons, Lords Temporal, Lords Spiritual—the ‘Three Estates of the Realm’—had the King for their head. He was, as it were, the keystone of the arch, of no power by himself, but of very great power when fitted into his place in the government of the country. Such was the view of Parliament in the early years of King Charles’ reign. Later on the Members of Parliament thought they had made a new discovery—that the arch would hold itself up without the help of its keystone.

* * * * *

When Charles came to the throne, England was engaged in a war upon the Continent. From his first Parliament the King demanded supplies of money to carry on this war, but was told that he must first redress the ‘grievances’ under which the nation suffered. This not being the reply that he had expected, he dissolved Parliament and began to raise money by a system of compulsory loans obtained from all townsfolk who were deemed wealthy enough to provide them. From the town of Hull the two Commissioners, who attended at the Town Hall for the purpose, demanded and received the sum of £332 13s. 4d.

At the same time seaport towns were ordered to provide armed vessels towards a fleet of one hundred ships which was being equipped. Hull’s share was three ships large enough to transport 1350 men.

As his second Parliament proved no more tractable than his first had been, the King now decided to govern without a Parliament at all; and this he did from 1629 to 1640. During this time he continued to raise money by what many people considered to be illegal taxes—such as _ship money_, or money provided by seaport and inland towns for the fitting out of imaginary fleets; and _tonnage and poundage_, a levy on every tun of wine imported and every pound’s worth of merchandise bought and sold.

It was only to be expected that some people would object to pay taxes which were said to be illegal. In fact many people were to be found who said, ‘We will pay no taxes which we, through our Members of Parliament, have not sanctioned.’ The famous John Hampden was one of these; and when the King’s Judges said to Hampden, ‘You and everybody else must pay,’ there were scores of people up and down the country who proclaimed openly in the market-places, 'Well, we won’t pay, that’s all.’

Matters were thus getting into a very unpromising condition when, in 1639, the King levied an army of 22,000 men to make war upon the Scots, who had shown just as strong objections to using the King’s prayer-book as the English people had shown to paying the King’s taxes. At the head of this army Charles marched north, and took up his quarters for a time at York, from which place he paid a visit to Hull.

* * * * *

Let us now see what Hull was like when Charles visited it for the first time.

The plan of _Kyngeston-vpon-Hvll_ given overleaf is reproduced from the very carefully drawn plan of a famous Dutch engraver named Hollar, and shows the appearance of the town in 1640. Surrounding the town to the north and west are the town wall and the moat, repaired and cleaned out by royal orders the previous year. North Gate and Hessle Gate span the moat and thus prevent ingress from both the Humber and the Hull. At each of the intervening three gates—Low Gate, Beverley Gate, and Myton Gate—the moat is spanned by a draw-bridge, and at the ends of Postern Gate Street and Blanket Row there are in the moat stakes for the support of bridges.

[Illustration:

A BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF KYNGESTON-VPON-HVLL (_From Hollar’s Plan. A.D. 1640_.) ]

Within the town wall are plainly to be seen the chief streets and buildings. What was called _The Ropery_ is our Humber Street, which then formed the actual bank of the Humber. Holy Trinity Church is far and away the largest of the buildings. St. Mary’s Church has now no tower, this having fallen in 1540—or, as tradition puts it, having been ‘pulled down to ye bare ground’ by order of the King. The sites of the Black Friary and White Friary are yet unbuilt upon.[51] The Suffolk Palace, begun by Michael de la Pole in 1384, confiscated to King Henry VIII., and converted by him into a ‘Sitidell and a special kepe of the hole town,’ rented of the Hildyards of Winestead by King Charles I. in 1639, and used as a magazine for military stores, forms an imposing pile of buildings. Its gardens stretch almost as far as the Beverley Gate.

Footnote 51:

The church of the Black Friary and the tower of St. Mary’s Church are very plainly shown in the older plan given on page 165.

On the opposite side of the river Hull, the ancient village of _Dripole_ has disappeared, and its place is taken by a new line of fortifications consisting of a ditch and wall, the latter strengthened by the addition of two ‘Blockhouses’ and a ‘Castle.’

This line of fortifications, together with a strong bridge over the Hull, was constructed by order of King Henry VIII. when he visited Hull in 1541; and its cost, £23,000, was provided by the King from the revenues of the suppressed monasteries. Large quantities of building materials from the White and the Black Friaries were used in its construction.[52]

Footnote 52:

In 1681 the North Blockhouse was abandoned, and a new Citadel built enclosing the Castle and the South Blockhouse. The whole was demolished about the middle of last century, with the exception of a small turret, which still remains built into the walls of the Humber Transport Company, but is shortly to be taken down and rebuilt in the West Park.

The welcome accorded to King Charles on this his first visit to Hull was most cordial. Outside the Beverley Gate he was met by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Recorder, who delivered to him the keys of the town, to be received back from the King’s hands with gracious words. In the speech made by the Recorder to his ‘Most Gracious Sovereign’ occurs this promise:—

‘We make bold, with the utmost zeal and fidelity that can be, to give your Majesty a full assurance of our most sincere loyalty, and will adhere to you against all your enemies with the utmost of our lives and fortunes.’

Then came the turn of the Mayor, who, in presenting the King with a long ribbon, which Charles at once tied in a knot and placed in his hat, said:—

‘Vouchsafe, great Sir, to accept the emblematic bond of our obedience, which is tied as fast to your Majesty, your Crown, and the Church, as our souls are to our bodies, and we are resolved never to part from the former until we part from the latter.’

But how hollow and insincere these words were was very shortly to be made apparent. Probably Charles himself recognised their tone of insincerity, and was doubtless much better pleased with the ‘purse of curious workmanship, containing one hundred guineas’ which accompanied the giving of the ‘Hull favour.’ That night the King lodged at the house of Sir John Lister[53] in High Street—that known to us as ‘Wilberforce House’—the next night he lodged at Beverley, and the following day he again reached York.

Footnote 53:

The King knighted his host during his visit.

* * * * *

These events were happening in the month of April, 1639. On the twenty-third of the same month three years later, Charles paid his second visit to Hull. And what a different reception was then to await him!

During these three years the relations between King and Parliament had been steadily growing more strained. Each recognised the possibility of there being in the future an appeal to arms; and each recognised, too, the importance of possessing ‘the most important fortress in the whole kingdom, and its vast magazine, which far exceeded the collection of warlike stores in the Tower of London.’[54]

Footnote 54:

In 1639 the military stores at the King’s Manor in Hull included 50 cannon, 200,000 muskets, carbines, pistols, and swords, 1,800 spades, shovels, and wheelbarrows, with powder, shot, and match to the value of upwards of £6000. Other stores of armour, powder, cannon balls, and musket shot purchased in Holland were added in the same year.

It was the King’s misfortune that Parliament, and not he, secured possession of Hull. Early in 1642 the Commons appointed Sir John Hotham, Member of Parliament for Beverley, to be Governor of Hull; and sent him down to take possession of the town, with orders not to deliver it up without the King’s authority ‘signified by both Houses.’ On April 23rd the King himself set out from York on the same errand, taking care to send forward from Beverley an officer charged with the message that the King would shortly arrive to dine with the Governor of the town.

But the result of this message was not what the King had expected it to be. Having consulted Mr. Pelham, one of the two Members of Parliament for the town, Sir John Hotham caused the bridges to be drawn up, the gates to be closed, and the walls to be lined with soldiers. The Mayor and townsfolk were ordered to keep within their houses.

It was eleven o’clock in the morning when the King, with a bodyguard of some three hundred soldiers, arrived before the Beverley Gate, where only three years before he had received such a cordial welcome. Now, when he commanded Sir John Hotham to open the Gate, he was met with a polite refusal. The Governor was very sorry to have to disobey the King’s command, but ‘he durst not open the gates to him, being intrusted by the Parliament with the safety of the town.’

[Illustration: KING CHARLES I. AT THE BEVERLEY GATE, KINGSTON-UPON-HULL, A.D. 1642.]

To the offer of the King, that he would leave all his train outside the Gate, with the exception of twenty horse, the Governor proved equally unresponsive.

From eleven o’clock till four o’clock the parleying of King and Governor went on. Then the King ‘retired to a little house without the walls, and after an hour’s stay returned’ and demanded a final answer. Would Sir John Hotham admit the King to ‘a town and fort of our own, wherein our own magazine lay;’ or would he forthwith be proclaimed a traitor?

Sir John chose the latter alternative, and was at once proclaimed guilty of high treason by the King’s heralds. Then the King withdrew to Beverley, and the first act of open hostility between Parliament and King was ended. The Great Civil War had, in fact, begun.

XXII. HOW HULL WAS TWICE BESIEGED.

The events of April 23rd, 1642, were immediately followed by the sending of letters to Parliament. Sir John Hotham forwarded an account of how he had obeyed the orders of Parliament to the best of his ‘understanding and utmost endeavours, though with some hazard of being misconceived by His Majesty’; while the King wrote demanding that ‘his said town and magazine might be immediately delivered up unto him, and that such severe exemplary proceedings should be taken against those persons who had offered him that insupportable affront, as by the law was provided.’

To the King’s letter no reply was given. But in reply to that of Sir John Hotham a deputation of members was sent to thank him and the soldiers under him for their services. Two warships were ordered to sail immediately to Hull under the command of the Earl of Warwick; and the following resolutions were passed by the two Houses:—

(1) That Sir John Hotham has done nothing but in obedience to the commands of both Houses of Parliament.

(2) That this declaring Sir John Hotham a traitor—being a Member of the House of Commons—is a high breach of the privilege of Parliament.

Copies of these resolutions, and of the ‘Declaration’ which accompanied them, were printed and spread abroad among the people. So also, from a printing-press established in St. William’s College at York, were issued pamphlets giving the King’s version of recent affairs. In one of these King Charles states his views in these words:—

We would fain be answered, what title any subject of our kingdom has to his house or land that we have not to our town of Hull? Or what right has he to his money, plate, or jewels, that we have not to our magazine or munition there? If we had ever such a title we would know when we lost it? And if that magazine and munition, bought with our own money, were ever ours, when and how the property went out of us?

The answer of the Houses of Parliament to the King’s questions was contained in _A Declaration of the Lords and Commons on the 26th of May_:—

By the known law of the kingdom, the very jewels of the Crown are not the King’s proper goods, but are only intrusted to him for the use and ornament thereof; as the towns, forts, treasure, magazine, offices, and people of the kingdom, and the whole kingdom itself, are intrusted to him, for the good and safety, and best advantage thereof; and as this trust is for the use of the kingdom, so ought it to be managed by the advice of the Houses of Parliament, whom the kingdom has trusted for that purpose.

While letters, pamphlets, and declarations were thus being composed, both King and Parliament were making preparations for actual warfare. And herein are seen the far-reaching effects of the prologue to the drama of the Great Civil War. The King had not—so the Royalist historian, the Earl of Clarendon, tells us—‘one barrel of powder, nor one musket, nor any other provision necessary for an army; and, what was worse, was not sure of any port to which they might be securely assigned; nor had he money for the support of his table for the term of one month.’

To purchase a supply of arms and ammunition by the sale of her own jewels, as well as of the Crown jewels, which Parliament was shortly to declare were ‘not the King’s proper goods,’ the Queen had sailed to Holland; and as the result of her journey a small ship, named the _Providence_, arrived in the Humber and was run ashore in Keyingham Creek. Sir John Hotham, hearing of its arrival, sent out from Hull a party of soldiers to seize its cargo. But his men were unsuccessful, and thus a small supply of military stores reached the King at York.

Meanwhile Parliament was busy in borrowing money ‘to raise forces which should defend the Protestant religion ... and the privileges of Parliament.’

These few words show us what was really the cause of the trouble. There had been growing up in the country a strong religious spirit which we call Puritanism, and the Puritans hated everything that savoured of Roman Catholicism. The Queen, Henrietta Maria, was a Roman Catholic, and the King was thought to have leanings to ‘idolatry’ himself. It was feared, in fact, that King Charles’ intention of raising an army of 22,000 soldiers for service in Ireland, and of arming them from the magazine at Hull, was only a subterfuge. What he really intended, so the Puritans said, was to overawe Parliament, and make England again a Roman Catholic country.

By the judicious spreading abroad of such pamphlets as the following—

More news from Hull; or a most happy and fortunate prevention of a most hellish and devillish plot, occasioned by some unquiet and discontented spirits against the town of Hull, endeavouring to command their admittance by casting balls of wild fire into the town, which by policy and treaty they could not obtain

—Parliament succeeded in borrowing a large sum of money, and large quantities of plate.

On June 3rd there assembled on Heworth Moor, close to the walls of York, a huge gathering of the King’s adherents, whose help was asked in ‘the defence of true religion, and of the laws and constitutions of this kingdom.’ The King was here accompanied by his son, Prince Charles, a bodyguard of 150 knights in armour, and some 800 soldiers. A month later the Court was moved to Beverley, where the King took up residence in the house of Lady Gee, a short distance within the North Bar.

* * * * *

[Illustration: SIR JOHN HOTHAM.]

Now began the first of two sieges which the town of Hull sustained during the war. The King’s forces are said to have amounted to 3,000 foot soldiers and 1,000 horsemen. Two hundred of the latter, under the command of Lord Willoughby de Eresby and Sir Thomas Glemham, were sent to establish forts at Paull and Hessle, on the shore of the Humber, above and below the town. A similar number of the former were employed in digging trenches to divert the stream which gave the town its water-supply.

But the Royalists were no match for the defenders of the town. The Governor called a Council of War, and the Council decided on a bold stroke of defence—nothing less than the cutting of the banks of the Humber and the Hull. This was immediately carried out, with the result that the low-lying lands surrounding the town were submerged, and any widely-planned measures of attack were rendered impossible. Sir John Meldrum, a Scots officer whom Parliament had sent down to assist the Governor, also organised a surprise attack on the King’s forces. The foot soldiers fled at the first blow, and the horse soldiers, thus left unsupported, were compelled to retreat to Beverley.

Luck was, it seemed, entirely against the King. Off Paull one of the Earl of Warwick’s ships of war fought with and sank a vessel bringing guns and ammunition to him, and in an engagement in the village of Anlaby a barn was set on fire which contained a large portion of the ammunition which he then possessed. These reverses caused the King to decide on raising the siege, and on retiring to York.

The measures adopted by the Governor for the defence of Hull thus proved entirely successful. But an interesting side-light on these measures is thrown by _The Humble Petition of the Gentry and Inhabitants of Holderness_, which was signed by ‘neer three hundred’ of his ‘Majesties most loyall and oppressed subjects,’ and ‘delivered to His Majestie at Beverley the sixth of July, 1642.’ The petitioners declare that they have

for the space of four moneths (with much patience and prejudice) endured great and insupportable Losse ...

They further complain that the cutting of the river banks Drowning part, and indangering the rest of the Levell of Holderness, is a Presumption higher than was ever yet attempted by any Subject.

The answer of ‘the Kings most excellent Majestie,’ signed by Lord Falkland, contains many fair words, and a promise that he will

by drawing such Forces together as he shall be able to leavie, endeavour the Petitioners Relief in their present sufferings—

a promise which the ‘Gentry and Inhabitants of Holderness’ probably did not consider altogether satisfactory.

Queen Henrietta Maria, who had during all this time been raising supplies of money for her husband, set sail from Holland on February 2nd, 1643, bringing with her a supply reckoned by popular rumour at £2,000,000. For nine days the small fleet accompanying her battled against a storm, and the Queen’s personal bravery was shown when she kept up the spirits of her terrified attendants with the jest that ‘Queens of England are never drowned.’

After a second start she eventually reached Bridlington Quay, and slept once more on land. But in the early hours of the February morning the little seaport was awakened with the noise of guns, and the crashing of shot among the houses. Four ships of the Parliamentarians were outside the harbour firing at the Dutch vessels which had brought over her and her supplies.

Once again the Queen showed her courage. For, hurrying to a place of safety in what scanty clothing she could lay hands on, she remembered that she had left behind her little lap-dog, and would not rest content until she had returned to her bedroom and rescued it. The rest of that night the Queen spent taking refuge in a ditch, but the morning brought to her aid some of the forces of the Earl of Newcastle, and the journey to York was accomplished in safety.

* * * * *

Less than twelve months after the first siege of Hull, the town came within an ace of falling into the hands of the King, and this through treachery on the part of its former defender.

Sir John Hotham, who had on more than one occasion shown a certain amount of indecision, and who was credited by some with secret leanings to the King’s party, was greatly angered by the decision of Parliament that its forces in the North of England should be under the command of another Yorkshireman, Ferdinando, Lord Fairfax. Considering himself and his services slighted, he now, with his son, Captain Hotham, plotted to give up the town to the Queen.

But the plot was discovered, owing to counter-treachery on the part of one of his relatives; and on June 29th Captain Mayer, in command of the _Hercules_, then lying in the Humber, landed a hundred men and seized the castle and block-houses.

[Illustration: MEDAL STRUCK IN MEMORY OF SIR JOHN HOTHAM.]

Meanwhile the Mayor, Mr. Thomas Raikes, had placed a guard over the Governor’s house, and had secured possession of Captain Hotham. The Governor himself effected his escape, passed out of the town by the Beverley Gate, attempted unsuccessfully to cross the river Hull at Stoneferry and at Wawne, decided to attempt to reach his house at Scorborough, was met in Beverley by his nephew, Colonel Boynton, and was knocked off his horse and captured by one of the latter’s soldiers.

Both father and son were sent to London on board the _Hercules_, and were then committed to the Tower. After an imprisonment lasting for seventeen months they were tried at the Guildhall, and condemned to death on a charge of ‘traitorously betraying the trust imposed upon them by Parliament.’ New Year’s Day, 1645, saw the execution of Captain Hotham on Tower Hill, the following day saw that of his father.

To return to the events of 1643—Lord Ferdinando Fairfax was appointed Governor of Hull in place of Sir John Hotham, and to raise money for the payment of his soldiers sold to the Trinity House his store of family plate. The agreement made on the occasion runs as follows:—

Whereas I Ferdinando Lord Fairfax, Lord Gen̄all of the Northerne forces raised for the Kinge, & Parlmᵗ; and Governor of the Towne of Kingston upon Hull, have received the some of ffoure hundered pownds, & foure shillings of the Guild, or Brotherhood of Maisters Pilotts, & seamen of the Trynity howse of the said Towne, for the use of the King, & Parlmᵗ: I doe hereby grant, bargaine, & sell sev̄all peices of silver plate conteining in weight one thousand six hundered ffiftie six ownces, to the said Trynity howse, & their successours for ever and have delivered the said plate to Willm Peck, & Willm Rayks Wardens of the said howse to the use thereof. In witnesse whereof, I have hereto sett my hand & seale the 4th day of September, Anno dni 1643

Fer: fairfax.

Two days before the signing of this agreement the second siege of Hull had been begun by the Marquis of Newcastle, with a force of 4,000 horse soldiers and 12,000 foot. This had been rendered necessary by the fact that Newcastle’s _Cavaliers_ would not leave their Yorkshire homes on a march southward, while the hated _Roundheads_ remained in possession of a stronghold from which they could with ease ravage the surrounding country. Hence Newcastle wanted, above all things, to gain possession of the town.

The second siege of Hull was very largely a repetition of the first. The besiegers cut off the water-supply, and also succeeded in mounting guns within half-a-mile of the town walls. With these guns much damage was at first done; for by constructing a furnace for the heating of balls, the gunners were enabled to fire red-hot balls over the walls of the town. But this was not for long, Lord Fairfax’s erection of a flanking battery soon putting these guns out of action.

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] [_C.W. Mason_

Hull’s Water Gate.[55]

]

At the beginning of the siege the Governor’s son, Sir Thomas Fairfax, who had been driven out of Beverley, had taken refuge within the walls with a large body of cavalry. But horse soldiers are not of much use in repelling a siege, and their horses are likely to be a severe hindrance. So it was in this case; and when the opportunity was afforded by the arrival of some of Oliver Cromwell’s soldiers at Barton, Sir Thomas and his ‘twenty troops of horse’ were ferried across to Lincolnshire.

Footnote 55:

This passage, which connects Blackfriargate and Little Humber Street, was, in the seventeenth century, the only entrance to the town from the landing-place on the Humber. It is less than seven feet wide.

On the 22nd of September—a day being held in the town as one of fasting and humiliation—Cromwell himself crossed over the Humber, bringing a fresh supply of muskets and powder. The town was now once more entirely surrounded by water. For a fortnight before this the former Governor’s plan of cutting the rivers’ banks had been carried out, and the Royalists thus compelled to abandon their positions.

Things were going badly for the besiegers. On September 28th their powder magazine at Cottingham was blown up, but whether by accident or by treachery is not known. On October 5th a reinforcement of 500 men crossed over to Hull from Lincolnshire, and six days later the garrison made a successful sally and captured one of a pair of huge guns known familiarly as ‘the Queen’s pocket pistols.’ That night the Marquis of Newcastle determined to raise the siege, and on the 12th of October the besieging army withdrew to York, smaller by one-half than it had been six weeks earlier.

* * * * *

The importance of the two sieges of Hull cannot be overestimated. Had the first been successful, the King would have been in the position to strike a decisive blow before the forces of Parliament were organised. In 1643 the King’s plan of campaign was that his three armies—his own at Oxford, that under Sir Ralph Hopton in Cornwall, and that under the Earl of Newcastle in Yorkshire—should converge on London, the headquarters of Parliament.

But for this plan to succeed two obstacles must be removed. The Parliamentarians held the seaport towns of Plymouth and Hull. The siege of each was undertaken; and the siege of each failed, mainly because Parliament held ‘the command of the sea.’ Thus, in the words of the great historian of the Great Civil War, ‘Hull and Plymouth saved the Parliamentary cause.’

XXIII. SOME ANCIENT EAST RIDING FAMILIES.

‘My ancestor came over with William the Conqueror,’ boasts one who is proud of his long line of ancestors. ‘So did mine’—‘and mine’—‘and mine’—might say a good number of us. Perhaps we could not prove our statement, but never mind. If we cannot prove that an ancestor of ours did come over with William the Conqueror, no one can prove that he didn’t.

Of course we all of us had ancestors living somewhere or other in the year 1066, but there are very few who can identify those ancestors. How many of us can trace back our pedigree for a couple of hundred years? Few probably. But the family descent of some of our countrymen and countrywomen can be traced back for several hundred years. These are our nobles and landed gentry.

Thus the descent of the present Baron Hotham of South Dalton can be traced back, through the Sir John Hotham who defied King Charles I., to an ancestor who in the twelfth century changed his name from De Trehouse to Hotham; that of Major Chichester-Constable of Burton Constable to an Ulbert Constable who lived in the reign of Henry I.; that of the Duchess of Norfolk to a William Fitz Nigel, who was Lord of Flamborough in the same reign; that of Mr. W. H. St. Quintin of Scampston Hall to a Sir Herbert de St. Quintin who was one of the companions-in-arms of William the Conqueror; and that of the Duke of Northumberland and Earl of Beverley to a Willelmus de Perci, who ‘came over with the Conqueror’ in the year 1067.

* * * * *

Proudest of all the proud nobles of the North were the PERCYS, whose descent from Willelmus de Perci has just been mentioned. Willelmus took his surname from the village of Perci in Normandy, and himself boasted a descent from one of the companions of that Rolf the Viking who sailed up the Seine in the year 912. _Als Gernons_ he was nicknamed, from his habit of wearing whiskers, whence the name ‘Algernon’ which was given generation after generation to the male members of the family.

In the Domesday Book Willelmus de Perci is recorded as the tenant-in-chief of more than a hundred manors in Yorkshire, and of twenty-three in Lincolnshire. Among the former were Leconfield, Scorborough, and Nafferton; among the latter Immingham. Willelmus was one of the Norman knights who accompanied Duke Robert of Normandy in the First Crusade, and he died at Mountjoy within sight of the Holy City.

Century after century the Percys took part in all great affairs of state. A Percy fought in the Battle of the Standard, another took part in the signing of Magna Carta at Runnymede, another was taken prisoner with the King at the battle of Lewes, another fought in the great naval victory of Sluys, and helped to win the battle of Neville’s Cross six years later.

The thirteenth Baron Percy was created Earl of Northumberland on the day of Richard II.’s coronation. But he and his son ‘Harry Hotspur’—the hero of the famous battle known as ‘Chevy Chace’—befriended Henry of Lancaster when he landed at Ravenser Spurn. Afterwards, however, both father and son rebelled, and Hotspur met his death at Shrewsbury, while his father was slain at Bramham Moor, in Northumberland. Hotspur’s son, the second Earl, fell at the battle of St. Albans which opened the ‘Wars of the Roses,’ and his grandson, the third Earl, fell at Towton six years later. Such a race of fighters were the Percys.

Most princely of the line was Henry Algernon Percy, the fifth Earl, nicknamed ‘Henry the Magnificent.’ He took part in the Field of the Cloth of Gold, and ruined himself by the expense there entailed. This Henry Percy possessed a castle at Wressle, and a fortified manor-house at Leconfield—the latter a large house standing ‘withyn a great Mote,’ and built ‘three partes ... of tymbere,’ the fourth part being ‘of stone and some brike.’ The ‘Mote’ remains, but all traces of the ‘large House’ with its eighty-three rooms have disappeared.

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] Wressle Castle. [_C.W. Mason_

]

Wressle Castle, or rather a part of it, still exists—the only ancient castle in the whole of the East Riding. Built in the closing years of the fourteenth century, it remained the chief Yorkshire seat of the Percys till the time of the Great Civil War; when orders for its destruction were issued by a Parliamentary Committee at York, although the owner—the tenth Earl of Northumberland—had sided with Parliament against the King.

The castle was built round a central courtyard, and in 1650 three sides of the square were pulled down, only the south side being left standing. A fire which broke out about 120 years ago completed the destruction of the interior of this remaining side, so that what exists to-day is a mere shell.

This block of buildings contained the Great Chamber or Dining Hall, the Drawing-Chamber, and the Chapel. The last was afterwards used as the Parish Church. On its ceiling was painted the Percy motto:—

=Esperance en Dieu ma Comforte.=

Above the chapel was a small chamber which is thus described by a visitor in the reign of Henry VIII.:—

One thing I likid exceedingly yn one of the Towers, that was a Study, caullid Paradise; where was a Closet in the midle, of 8 squares latised aboute, and at the Toppe of every square was a Desk ledgid to set Bookes on Cofers withyn them, and these semid as yoinid hard to the Toppe of the Closet; and yet by pulling, one or al wold cum downe briste higthe in rabettes,[56] and serve for Deskes to lay Bokes on.

Footnote 56:

_Rabbets_ are grooves cut in the edge of a piece of wood.

Much interesting information as to life in a mediæval castle can be gleaned from what is known as _The Northumberland Household Book_.[57] The original manuscript of this was prepared in 1512 by the orders of Henry the Magnificent, and gives a detailed account of the estimated household expenditure for a year and of the regulations of the household.

Footnote 57:

A reprint was published in 1905 by A. Brown & Sons, Ltd.

From this book we learn that the staff at Wressle Castle consisted of 166 persons, of whom eleven were priests, and that ‘the Hole Expensys ... for oone hole Yere amounted to DCCCCXXXIIJ_L._ VJ_S._ VIIJ_D._’ It is strange to find that beds, hangings, and furniture were moved from one residence to another when the Earl travelled, and that there is no mention of glass among the table requisites, vessels for eating and drinking being solely of wood or pewter.

For travelling and for hunting the Earl’s stables contained _vj Gentle Hors_, _iiij Palfreis_ (one for my Lady and three for my Lady’s gentlewomen), _iij Naggs_, _iij Sumpter Hors_ and _Mail Hors_ (for carrying the bed, coffers, and coats of mail), vij Hors for the use of servants, and _vij Charriot-hors to drawe in the Charriot_.

* * * * *

Very precise rules are given for the serving of meals. Breakfast was served at eight, and dinner at eleven, each morning. Among the rules to be observed for the serving of meals are these:—

First when they go to Cover, Hee [the Usher] must go before them through the Hall, crying ‘By your leaves Gentlemen, stand by.’

If any unworthy Fellow do unmannerly sett himself down before his Betters, he must take him up and place him lower.

Let the best fashioned and apparrelled Servants attend above the Salte, the Rest belowe.

If one Servant have occasion to speak to another about Service att the Table, let him whisper, for noyse is uncivil.

What my Lord and Lady had to eat for breakfast is shown in the following extracts:—

BRAIKFASTIS OF FLESCH DAYS DAYLY thorowte the Yere.

BRAIKFASTIS for my Lorde and my Lady.

FURST a Loof of Brede in Trenchors ij Manchetts[58] j Quart of Bere a Quart of Wyne Half a Chyne of Mutton or ells a Chyne of Beif boilid.

Footnote 58:

Small loaves of white bread.

During Lent no breakfast was allowed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, but on the other days of the week there were provided in place of ‘meitt’:—

ij Pecys of Saltfisch vj Baconn’d Herryng iiij White Herryng or a Dysche of Sproits.

What the Earl’s children had for breakfast in the nursery is similarly shown:—

BRAIKFASTS for the Nurcy for my Lady Margaret and Mr. Yngram Percy.

ITEM a Manchet j Quarte of Bere and iij Muton Bonys boilid.

Or, during Lent:—

ITEM a Manchet a Quarte of Bere a Dysch of Butter a Pece of Saltfisch a Dysch of Sproits or iij White Herryng.

Among the household necessaries to be provided are:—_Wheet_, _Malte_, _Beefis_, _Muttuns_, _Gascoin Wyne_, _Poorks_, _Veelis_, _Lambes_, _Stokfish_, _Salt Fishe_, _Whyt Hering_, _Rede Herynge_, _Sproits_, _Salmon_, _Saltt Elis_, _Fieggs_, _Great Rasins_, _Hopps for Brewynge_, _Hony_, _Oile_, _Waxe_, _Weik for Lightys_, _Bay Saltte_, _White Saltte_, _Parishe Candell_, _Vinacre_, _Lynnon Clothe_, _Brass Pottis_, _Mustarde_, _Stone Crusis_, _Rughe Pewter Vessel_, and _All Manner of Spices_—_Piper_, _Rasyns of Corens_, _Prones_, _Gynger_, _Clovvez_, _Sugour_, _Allmonds_, _Daytts_, _Nuttmuggs_, _Rice_, _Safferon_, and _Coumfetts_—_See Cholys_, _Char Cholis_, _Fagoots_, and _Greet Woode_, ‘bicause Colys will not byrne withowte Wodd.’

For the great feasts during the year xx _Swannys_ were to be provided from the Earl’s Carr at Arram, in addition to xxix _Does_ and xx _Bukks_ from his Parks at Leconfield and elsewhere. So also for my Lord’s table were to be bought _Capons_, _Geysse_, _Chekyns_, _Pegions_ (‘iij for j_d._’), _Cunys_ (‘ij_d._ a pece’), _Pluvers_ (j_d._ a pece’), _Mallardes_, _Woodcokes_, _Seegulls_ (‘j_d._ a pece so they be good and in season’), _Styntes_ (‘vj for j_d._’), _Quaylles_, _Snypes_, _Pertryges_, _Redeshankes_, _Dottrells_, _Bustardes_ and _Larkys_ (‘xij for ij_d._’). _Hearonsewys_,[59] _Bytters_,[59] _Fesauntes_ and _Kyrlewes_ were to be paid for at the rate of ‘xij_d._ a pece’; but the most expensive dish was one of _Cranys_, which cost ‘xvj_d._ a pece.’

Footnote 59:

Herons and Bitterns are known to-day in the East Riding as ‘herrin-sews’ and ‘buttherbumps.’

What high junketings there must have been at Wressle Castle in the days of ‘Henry the Magnificent’! Did the feasters afterwards pay for their over-indulgence in rich food? An answer may perhaps be supplied from the purchase of ‘xxx Saks of Charcoill for Stilling of Bottells of Waters’—_Water of Roses_, _Water of Harts Tonge_, _Water of Parcelly_, _Water of Walnott Leeffs_, _Water of Prymeroses_, _Water of Cowslops_, _Water of Tandelyon_, _Water of Marygolds_ and many others—‘all worth,’ each penitent would doubtless declare, ‘xxj_s._ a bottell.’

* * * * *

In