The Rising of the North

On Elizabeth’s accession in 1558 the political and religious situation changed again.  Elizabeth was eager to make peace with the Protestant Scots and was concerned about the loyalty of the Catholic Earls.  She therefore forced Neville and Percy to give up their positions of power in the North and replaced them with Sir John Forster and Sir George Bowes.

These actions by Elizabeth had the effect of decreasing the political status of the two earls and causing them a considerable loss of income.  This could be seen as a major reason why they felt that they had no option but to rebel in 1569 but both earls were reluctant rebels and Thomas Markenfield and Richard Norton were perhaps more relevant in explaining the move to rebel.

The new Tudor regime sought to prevent further wars by decreasing their power.  New men, loyal to the Tudor king were raised to high office. The Clifford family of Skipton were raised to the Earldom of Cumberland and given power over much of the border frontier with Scotland.  This brought about conflict with the Markenfields and Nortons over land rights and authority in Rhylstone in Craven and the manor of Kirkby Malzeard in the 1530s, and these arguments continued into the 1560s. The Percy estates had been forfeit to the Crown in 1537 as a consequence of their part in the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536 and had been taken over by the Forster family.

Richard Norton had been involved in Catholic plots against Elizabeth from the early 1560s.  Richard was steward of the Earl of Lennox’s properties in Yorkshire and Lady Margaret Lennox, niece of Henry VIII and cousin of Elizabeth I, was a staunch Catholic and had a claim to be considered as Elizabeth’s heir.  In 1561-2 Richard Norton promised to support the Earls if they rebelled against Elizabeth, to support Lady Lennox and her son Henry Lord Darnley’s claims to the throne.  Nothing came of this. In 1564 Darnley married Mary Queen of Scots so uniting the two claims to the English throne making Elizabeth ‘incandescent with rage’.

A year later, in 1565, Richard Norton again promised 700 of his men and the help of the Scots if the Earl of Northumberland would rebel in support of Darnley and Mary – his plans came to nothing.

In May 1568 a Scottish rebellion forced Mary to flee to England and seek Elizabeth’s help to regain her throne. Seeing her as a threat to her own throne, Elizabeth replied by placing her in the custody of Lord Scroope of Bolton Castle.

The presence of Mary in England became a new focal point for discontented Catholics and within three weeks of her arrival at Bolton Castle in 1568 a plan to rescue her involved Christopher Norton, Richard’s son.  Christopher was a member of the Scroope household helping to guard Mary, but the plot failed when Christopher was removed from the household.

In January 1569 Richard Norton, his son Francis and Thomas Markenfield plotted to free Mary from captivity in York but when Mary learnt of their plans she warned them off, as she did for their next proposal to free her on her move from Bolton Castle to Tutbury Castle in early 1569.  Their plotting continued over the summer of 1569.

Despite all the political upheaval and the power struggles perhaps the main driving force behind the rebellion was the severe restrictions placed upon the devout Catholic community by a staunchly Protestant monarch.

Some historians have suggested that Elizabeth had initially demonstrated tolerance towards Catholics. The term ‘tolerant confusion’ has been used to describe the slow progress of the religious settlement of the Church of England in the years following her accession. But in the mid- to late-1560’s, Catholics began to see changes in this policy:

Arrests of those secretly attending Mass increased.

Fines for those not attending established church services increased.

More and more Catholics went into exile and soon a seminary was established in Douai for those who fled from England.

The Court of High Commission and the bishops’ visitations demonstrated increased vigour in detecting and correcting recalcitrant priests.

Iconoclasm and punishment of those who had protected religious imagery offended and humiliated Catholics.

The Inns of Court expelled Catholics and barred them from commons and court.

The time of ‘tolerant confusion’ was over the Elizabethan Privy Council had a policy of ensuring religious uniformity in England.

The Earls were requested three more times to attend court and each time they refused, heightening Elizabeth’s suspicions.  By now the only decision was to rebel or flee.  Both Earls were still reluctant to commit themselves to rebellion.  Charles Neville was finally persuaded to lead a rebellion by his two uncles and his wife Jane.  Jane was the eldest daughter of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey who was beheaded in 1547 at the age of 29.  He had been found guilty of treason on the 13th January 1547, where evidence was given “which concerned overt conspiracy as well as the usurpation of the royal arms”. It was alleged that “he had on 7 October 1546 at Kenninghall displayed in his own heraldry the royal arms and insignia, with three labels silver, thereby threatening the king’s title to the throne and the prince’s inheritance”  Clearly Jane had good reason to oppose the Tudor cause.

Not all were convinced by his arguments and they wrote to the Pope requesting his help.  However Pius V did not issue a bull of excommunication until 1570, too late to ease the minds of the rebels.

The pertinent section of the bull, in translation from the Latin is as follows:

They then asked that all men between the ages of 16 and 60 muster with arms and armour to support their cause.

The proclamation ‘lest if we should not do it ourselves, we might be reformed by strangers’ may suggest that the rebels were expecting help from Spain which never materialised.

Some who may have been expected to join the rebellion did not commit themselves.  These included Leonard Dacre, William Ingleby and Francis Slingsby.  Many gentry families were divided in choosing between the rebels and the Queen.

During November 1569 both the rebels and the Queen’s supporters were gathering men and arms.  On November 7^th the Neville tenants started to gather at Bracepeth and the royalists at Barnard Castle with Sir George Bowes and in York with the Earl of Sussex.  Bowes reported regularly to Sussex and identified both Richard Norton and Thomas Markenfield as being prominent among the rebel leaders.

The rebels then gathered at Boroughbridge (4) to determine their plan of action.  They could have attacked York but considered it too well defended, or they could have marched south to engage with the royal troops moving north to support those in York but they were likely to be significantly outnumbered.  However the main objective may have been to release Mary Queen of Scots from captivity in Tutbury Castle where she had been held since September 2^nd of that year.

On 22^nd November the rebels mustered on Bramham Moor (5) near Leeds, 90 miles from Tutbury which they could have reached before the royal reinforcements arrived.  There is some evidence that a small body of troops may have reached Doncaster on 24^th November, just 40 miles from Tutbury and two or three days march away.  If that had been the plan they would have been disappointed since on November 22^nd Mary had been moved south to Coventry, some 80 miles from Doncaster, evidence that Elizabeth had a very good intelligence network.

On December 2^nd, as a final act of rebellion, the Earls took 1,500 cavalry and 3,200 foot soldiers to lay siege to Barnard Castle (8), the home of Sir George Bowes.  The siege ended with the capture of the castle on December 14^th and Sir George Bowes and his small army of supporters were allowed to march to join the Earl of Sussex’s men in York. Then the rebel army headed north.

By December 13^th 12,000 royal troops had arrived in Wetherby (10) to supplement the 7,000 raised by Sussex and Bowes.  By 16^th December the royalists had reached Darlington.

Also on December 16^th the rebels had reached Hexham (11) where the leaders decided that their cause was lost and they abandoned their foot soldiers and fled to Alnwick (12).  By December 19^th they had fled to Naworth Castle and a day later they were in Scotland.

Some of the rebels were captured by the Scots and handed back to the royalists while others were supported by their Scottish hosts.  This lead to raids across the border into England and in February 1570 there were some 2000 English rebels in the Borders supported by their Scottish hosts.  On April 10^th 1570 Elizabeth retaliated and ordered an armed invasion of Scotland.  These raids were vicious and between April 17^th and June 2^nd the English had burnt or levelled 90 castles and fortified homes and 300 towns and villages. Most of these belonged to those supporters of Mary Queen of Scots who were suspected of protecting the English rebels.

In 1585 Richard Norton was injured while being taken prisoner by English soldiers in Flanders. He later died of his wounds on board ship on 9^th April 1585 aged 87 while being taken back to England.  In a way Richard was lucky to die aboard ship since had he arrived alive in London he would have been given a quick show-trial, found guilty and been hanged, drawn and quartered.

All Thomas’s estates were forfeit to the Crown but his wife Isabel was allowed to stay close to the Hall probably in the village of Markenfield close by.  Isabel received a small pension of £20.10s.8d a year from her brother Sir William Ingleby.  He was required to pay this from the income he received from the issues of the manor of Romanby, a manor that had previously belonged to Isabel’s husband.  Her son Ninian and his uncle William (Thomas’s brother) were pardoned in 1570.

No record of Isabel’s death or burial has been found but Ninian was buried in Ripon Minster on 25^th September 1587.  The records of Ripon Cathedral show that Ninian’s wife, Elizabeth Markenfield was given a pauper’s burial in 1600.

Of the Norton family, Richard’s brother Thomas, and three of his sons namely Christopher, William and Marmaduke were arrested and charged with treason.  Elizabeth pardoned William and Marmaduke but Thomas and Christopher were arraigned at Westminster and pleaded guilty to the charges against them.

Charles Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, escaped to Scotland and succeeded in avoiding capture. In the autumn of 1570 he embarked at Aberdeen and landed in Flanders. Philip of Spain granted him a pension of 50 crowns per month.  In 1581 his name appears amongst the pilgrims at Rome, in the records of the English College. He died in Nieuport (now Nieuwpoort) a town in the Province of West Flanders on 16^th November 1601, having never returned home since his flight into exile.

Elizabeth was determined to ensure that the yeomen and artisans who had joined the rebellion paid a heavy price for their involvement.  Sir George Bowes was ordered ‘to invade, resist, subdue, slay, kill and put to execution of death by all ways and means.’  Men seem to have been selected at random from each ward to be hanged.  Of the 794 known rebels identified in Durham, 308 were selected to die.

It is also said that 200 (some sources say 300) men were hanged at Gallows Hill in Ripon during January 1570 as a warning against further rebellion.

The letter below gives the instructions from the Earl of Sussex to Sir George Bowes to hang 200 men.

We know something of the form of the Markenfield Hall from the commissioners’ survey of 21^st April 1570 after Thomas Markenfield had been attainted and the family expelled from the Hall, as follows:

t was thought that these boxes may be held in the National Archive at Kew but as yet such searches have proved to be in vain.

The erroneous assumption that the Markenfield estates were given to Elizabeth’s Chancellor, Thomas Egerton, has now been conclusively disproven by the unexpected discovery of the Letter Patent sealed by Elizabeth I found in the library of the School of Law at The University of California , Berkeley, U.S.A., the first of three sections (rotulets) of parchment is shown below.

Gates was held in such high regard by Queen Elizabeth and her closest advisers that he was entrusted with £3,000 in gold which was to be taken to the Scottish Regent in exchange for the Regent handing over rebel leaders who had fled North in 1569.

Henry Gates had eight children and one of his two daughters, Katherine, received Markenfield as part of her marriage settlement to Charles Egerton – an army commander who had served in Ireland, ending his military career as Constable of Carrickfergus Castle. Charles Egerton was knighted; becoming Sir Charles Egerton of Knockfergus and in addition to his wife’s dowry of Markenfield, he had purchased estates in Newborough, Staffordshire to provide for his life after retirement from the army.

Sir Charles and Lady Katherine had a son in 1585, also Charles, who subsequently married Griselda Bawtree and Charles and Griselda became the new owners of Markenfield. In 1622, Sir Charles, the elder, formally transferred ownership of his Newborough (and other) properties to his son, Sir Charles, the younger, who at that time was living at ‘Markenfield Hall in the County of Yorkshire’.

Markenfield then passed in 1748 to the 3^rd Duke of Bridgewater, Francis Egerton, when he was 12, as one of many country estates built up by the Dukes of Bridgewater. Francis eventually died unmarried having endured a failed engagement to Elizabeth Gunning (the Dowager Duchess of Hamilton) in 1758/9. Following his unsuccessful affair, the 3^rd Duke embarked on a remarkable change of direction, resulting in the sale of many of the Bridgewater estates – including in 1761 Markenfield Hall. The proceeds of these sales he reinvested in his impressive canal building and engineering projects (e.g. The Bridgewater Canal), which he continued up to his death in 1803.

Markenfield was about to enter a further major change in its fortunes in the hands of its 1761 purchaser, Fletcher Norton, who paid £9,400 for the Markenfield estate.

The Confession of Thomas Norton which he made at his Death, in form as hereafter followeth.

On Saturday, being the 27^th day of May, Thomas Norton, and Christopher Norton, of Yorkshire, being both condemned of High-Treason against the Queen’s Majesty’s person, were delivered, by the lieutenant of the Tower, to the sheriffs of London: and were both laid on a hurdle, and so drawn from the Tower, through the city of London, to Tyburn (the place of execution) having besides many officers, and a multitude of others, a godly preacher riding beside them, always comforting, and earnestly exhorting them, all the way, to acknowledge their fact, to discharge their conscience, and to be truly repentant, and heartily sorry for the same.

And, being come to the place of Execution, proclamation was made of the cause of their death.  Thomas Norton, the elder man, was first executed, who took his death in this wise.  He being come up, and standing upon the cart, with the rope about his neck, the preacher requested him, earnestly, to acknowledge his offence, in rebelling against God and his prince, and to ask God mercy for his sins, and of the queen’s majesty forgiveness for his disobedience.

He answered; That for the offence made and committed towards the queen’s majesty, he had the law for it, and therefore must suffer death, and to that end he was come thither, and so asked God for forgiveness for his offences.  Then, he being requested by the preacher, to say the Lord’s prayer, he immediately began to say the same in Latin.  And, being disturbed by the preacher, who willed him to say it as God hath commanded, and, as every true churchman ought to do (that is to say) in the vulgar tongue, that all the audience might bear witness how he died a true Christian.  Sir, (quoth he) and answered very obstinately, that he would pray in Latin, and therefore prayed him that he would not molest his conscience.  Then the Secondary bad him, if he would needs say it in Latin, to say it then secretly to himself; and so he did.

His Latin prayers being ended, the preacher, not neglecting his duty, exhorted him very earnestly, to say the Lord’s prayer and the Belief in English, from the bottom of his heart, as every true Christian ought to do.  At last, after much exhortation, he granted to say it in English; and so said the Lord’s prayer in English, whereunto he added the Ave-Maria, and then the Belief.  And then he desired , not only the audience, but also all the Saints in Heaven, to pray for him, both then, and at all times, as well as after his death, as then he being alive.

Then the preacher bade him put his whole hope and trust in the death and blood-shedding for Christ our Saviour, and by him only hope to be saved.  With that the cart was drawn away, and there he hung a certain space, and then was taken down, and quartered, in the presence of his nephew, Christopher Norton, who then presently must drink of the same cup.

The End and Confession of Christopher Norton, who, as it seemed, died more repentant and more Christian-like, than his Uncle did.

Christopher Norton, the younger son, after he beheld the death of his uncle, as well as his quartering, as otherwise, knowing, and being well assured, that he himself must follow the same way, seemed very repentant, and heartily sorry for his offence, and immediately kneeled down on the ground, before he came to the cart, with his face Eastward, and his prayers unto God: and afterward, stepping up to the cart and then being asked by the preacher, Whether he did believe, and hope to be saved by Christ’s death, and blood-shedding? he made Answer; That he did verily so believe, and hoped to be saved by no other means; and, therefore, besought all the audience, who then were present, to bear witness, that he there died a true Christian.  And being asked, Whether he did acknowledge and confess that he had deserved to die? And whether he had not both offended God, and the queen’s majesty; he made answer, That he had worthily deserved that death, and therefore besought God, and all men to forgive him, for committing the like.

And immediately he did inquire; Whether any there did know one Philip Shurley, who now is captain in Scotland?  There were some made Answer; that they did know him.  Then he declared, how he was the causer of his death, nevertheless, he did forgive him; and when he and the people had said the Lord’s Prayer together, then he made his Confession to God in thiswise: –

‘I Christopher Norton, who am come hither to take my death, being justly condemned, by the laws of the realm, being sound of body, and of perfect remembrance, do here acknowledge and confess, my good Lord and Saviour, before the Throne of thy majesty, my heinous offence, by me committed between God and my prince; desiring thee, good Lord, from the very bottom of my heart, to have mercy on me, miserable and wretched sinner, who am now coming to thee, being here now ready to die.  O most merciful Lord receive me, a sinful wretch, and refuse me not, but hearken to my voice’ –

With that, the hangman executed his office: and, being hanged a little while, and then cut down, the butcher opened him, and as he took out his bowels, he cried and said, ‘Oh Lord, Lord, have mercy upon me!’ and so yielded up the ghost.  Then being, likewise , quartered as the other was, and their bowels burned, as the manner is, their quarters were put into a basket, provided for the purpose, and so carried to Newgate, where they were parboiled; and afterwards, their heads set on London-Bridge, and their quarters set upon sundry gates of the city of London, for an example to all Traitors and Rebels, for committing High-Treason against God and their prince.

God grant it may be a special warning for all men; and God turn the hearts of all those who are maliciously bent against Elizabeth, our queen and sovereign of this realm, and send her a triumphant victory over all her enemies.  Amen.  God save the Queen.

[The punctuation and spelling have been retained from the original document]

In February 1570, Pope Pius V declared that Elizabeth was a heretic and, as such, she was excommunicated by way of a Papal Bull (order). The Bull released Catholics from any loyalty to Elizabeth and called upon them to remove her from the throne.

The Pope was trying to capitalise on the discontent caused by the arrival of Mary, Queen of Scots in England, as well as the recent rebellion of the Northern Earls. This was a danger to the Elizabethan Religious Settlement and could provide a reason for a Catholic uprising, possibly supported by a foreign power.

However, the Pope had miscalculated. English and Welsh Catholics preferred to keep quiet about their religious beliefs and remained loyal to Elizabeth. The Pope had seriously overestimated his power over Catholics in these countries. They wanted to continue to live and worship as Catholics but most did not want the Pope to have political power.

Despite this, Parliament took no chances and in 1571 passed a series of Acts designed to protect Elizabeth from any consequences of the Papal Bull. [taken from the BBC website]. A translation of the Papal Bull can be found below.

1. In obedience to which duty, we (who by God’s goodness are called to the aforesaid government of the Church) spare no pains and labour with all our might that unity and the Catholic religion (which their Author, for the trial of His children’s faith and our correction, has suffered to be afflicted with such great troubles) may be preserved entire. But the number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge. This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England together with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it, has once again reduced this same kingdom- which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits- to a miserable ruin.

2. Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who preserved in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorius among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defence or evasion.

4. And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.

5. And also (declare) the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship, fealty and obedience; and we do, by authority of these present, so absolve them and so deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other the above-said matters. We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.

6. Because in truth it may prove too difficult to take these presents wheresoever it shall be necessary, we will that copies made under the hand of a notary public and sealed with the seal of a prelate of the Church or of his court shall have such force and trust in and out of judicial proceedings, in all places among the nations, as these presents would themselves have if they were exhibited or shown.

Given at St. Peter’s at Rome, on 27 April 1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate.

This review has used information contained in the following references, amongst others:

Dom Bede Camm, Forgotten Shrines, (Gracewing Publishing), 2004,  ISBN 0 85244 615 2

Kesslering, K.J., The Northern Rebellion of 1569, (Palgrave Macmillan), 2007, ISBN 978 0 230 24889 2

Morgan J., Phoenix Britannicus, volumn 1, Reprint 2011, (Nabu Press, U.S.A.) ISBN 978 1 173 81618 6

Senior, J. C., The Markenfields of Markenfield Hall, (Black Swan Books), 2009, ISBN 978 1 903564-264

Sharpe, C., Memorials of the 1569 Rebellion, (Shotton), 1975, ISBN 0 905025 00 8

Notes from a talk given at Markenfield Hall by Gillian Waters in October 2011

A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783

Dr J K Jones   June 2016

Edited September 2020